Aw Practice Slaughter Com Borest Report PDF

SANCO/2012/10357
RESTRAINING SYSTEMS
FOR BOVINE ANIMALS
SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT STUNNING
WELFARE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS
ACRONYM: BOREST
FINAL REPORT
JUNE 2015
Coordinator : L. Mirabito,
Institut de lElevage
149, Rue de Bercy

75 595 Paris Cedex 12
Coordinator
Luc Mirabito, Institut de lElevage
Authors and participants

Lisanne Stadig, ILVO
Claudia Terlouw, INRA
Ccile Bourguet, INRA
Virginie Marzin, Institut de lElevage
Barbara Ducreux, Institut de lElevage
Florence Bergeaud-Blackler, IREMAM
Antoni Dalmau, IRTA
Pedro Rodriguez, IRTA
Joaquim Pallisera Lloveras, IRTA
Willy Baltussen, LEI-Wageningen UR
Marien Gerritzen, Wageningen UR- Livestock Research
Mariet de Winter, LEI-Wageningen UR
Troy Gibson, Royal Veterinary College
Beniamino Cenci-Goga, University of Perugia
Sara Novelli, University of Perugia
CONTENT
1.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.
OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 5
3. REVIEW OF THE CURRENT LITERATURE ON UPRIGHT AND ROTATING RESTRAINT SYSTEMS FOR
SLAUGHTER OF BOVINE ANIMALS WITHOUT STUNNING ..................................................................................... 11
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Rotating restraint ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Upright restraint .............................................................................................................................................. 23
Entry to slaughter interval ............................................................................................................................... 27
Time to Insensibility in rotating and upright restraints .................................................................................. 29
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 31
4. CURRENT SITUATION OF THE RESTRAINT PRACTICES OF BOVINE ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT
STUNNING ............................................................................................................................................................. 33
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 33
Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 33
Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 35
Overview of meat production and restraint practices used for Religious slaughter of bovine animals in
European Union ........................................................................................................................................... 35
Inventory of the restraint devices used by commercial slaughterhouses performing slaughter without
previous stunning in six selected Member states ...................................................................................... 49
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 61
5. ASSESSMENT OF WELFARE OF BOVINE ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT STUNNING USING DIFFERENT
RESTRAINT DEVICES/PRACTICES ........................................................................................................................... 65
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 65
Material and Method....................................................................................................................................... 67
Description of the sample of groups of animals ......................................................................................... 67
Measures...................................................................................................................................................... 73
Planning ....................................................................................................................................................... 75
Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 77
Entry of the bovine animals into the restraint device (from nose in device to head out of device
before start of the restraining procedure).................................................................................................. 77
Restraint procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 85

Cutting and bleeding ................................................................................................................................... 93
Signs of consciousness ................................................................................................................................. 99
Conclusion and recommendations ................................................................................................................ 111
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 111
Recommendations and best observed practices for adult bovine animals ............................................... 115
6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE USE OF THE DIFFERENT RESTRAINT SYSTEMS FOR
SLAUGHTERING BOVINE ANIMALS WITHOUT STUNNING .................................................................................. 123
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 123
Objectives and scope of the study ................................................................................................................ 125
Objectives and scope ................................................................................................................................. 125
Method ...................................................................................................................................................... 125
Process ....................................................................................................................................................... 129
Socio-economic implications of the different restraint systems .................................................................. 135
Economic costs........................................................................................................................................... 135
Religious aspects........................................................................................................................................ 139
Work safety ................................................................................................................................................ 141
Intra-EU trade and trade with third countries .......................................................................................... 143
Animal Welfare .......................................................................................................................................... 145
DISCUSSION and Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 149
Scenarios for implementing technical recommendations ............................................................................ 153
Description of the Scenarios ..................................................................................................................... 153
Assessment of the impact of the different scenarios ............................................................................... 163
Indicators for monitoring and evaluation ..................................................................................................... 185
Conclusion on the socio-economic implications ........................................................................................... 187
7.
GENERAL CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 191

context of the study ....................................................................................................................................... 191
restraint practices of bovine animals slaughtered without stunning .......................................................... 191
Welfare of animals and restraint devices/practices ..................................................................................... 193
Scenarios for future EU policies..................................................................................................................... 195
8.
FIGURES............................................................................................................................................................... 199
9.
TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................ 201
10. ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................................... 209

ANNEX 1 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE AT THE TIME OF KILLING .... 209
ANNEX 2 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE AT THE TIME OF KILLING .... 215
ANNEX 3 : LIST OF MANUFACTURERS AND NUMBER OF DEVICES PER SELECTED COUNTRY ........................ 221
ANNEX 4 : EQUIPMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKING AREA ......................................................... 223
ANNEX 5 : DEFINITION OF OPERATING PROCEDURE AND BEHAVIORAL ITEMS ............................................. 225
ANNEX 6 : BEHAVORIAL AND OPERATING PROCEDURE OBSERVATION ..................................................... 229
ANNEX 7 : ANIMALS CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................... 233
ANNEX 8: QUESTIONNAIRES FOR DATA COLLECTION (SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS) ........................... 235
ANNEX 9 : METHODOLOGY FOR THE MEETING WITH RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATIVES ................................... 251
ANNEX 10 : PROPOSED BASIS FOR IMPROVED STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND WORK SAFETY . 253
ANNEX 11: VALUATION OF THE INDICATORS PER JUDGEMENT AREA TO COMPARE THE UPRIGHT AND
ROTATING RESTRAINING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 257
9. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 261
BoRest final report June 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
An essential requirement for the slaughter of bovine animals with or without stunning is
adequate restraint. The objective of the different systems is to restrain the animal in the pen
so that stunning and slaughter can be performed effectively, safely, while minimising stress,
distress and pain to the animals (Anil 2012).
Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 allows the possibility to derogate from stunning animals in
the case of religious slaughter (Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter respectively
Shechita and Dhabiha for the production of kosher and halal meat). Two main restraint
systems are used for this purpose in European countries:
Rotating restraint device where the bovine animals are slaughtered in dorsal
(inverted) or lateral position
Upright restraint device where animals are restrained in an upright position.
The 2004 report on the welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods,
prepared by the European Food Safety Authority, concluded that there is a welfare
advantage in restraining animals in upright position on the basis of studies comparing the
two systems that was carried out at the beginning of the nineties. However, during the
political debate that led to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2099, some religious
communities expressed concerns about compatibility of the upright position with their
religious requirements. Furthermore, different stakeholders highlighted that the new
designs of rotating restraint devices (including adjustable lateral and head restraint) that are
currently in use in Europe, significantly differ from those used in the previous research
studies. These newer devices have been suggested to provide advantages in terms of animal
welfare and work safety. As a conclusion, Article 27 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009
provides that: No later than 8 December 2012, the Commission shall submit to the European
Parliament and the Council a report on systems restraining bovine animals by inversion or
any unnatural position. This report shall be based on the results of a scientific study
comparing these systems to the ones maintaining bovines in the upright position and shall
take into account the animal welfare aspects as well as the socio-economic implications,
including their acceptability by the religious communities and the safety of operators. ().
The general purpose of the present study was therefore to collect relevant information for
the Commission to prepare the above mentioned report.
To achieve this objective, the study firstly examined the overall current situation regarding
restraining practices for bovine animals slaughtered without stunning in Europe. A review of
the scientific literature was conducted and detailed information about practices and
equipment in slaughterhouses of six Member States (Belgium, France, Italy, The
Netherlands, The United Kingdom and Spain) were collected.
The second part of the study aimed to assess animal welfare, taking into account the
diversity of systems (upright vs. rotating) and variations in practices. This assessment was
carried out in a sample of slaughterhouses of the selected Member States.
A third part of the study aimed to analyse the socio-economic implications of the use of the
different restraint system. Based on data collected from the sampled slaughterhouses, costs
and work safety aspects were analysed. Religious communities opinions were collected
through interviews and meetings. At the end, different scenarios of future European Union
(EU) policies for implementing technical recommendations were proposed and analysed in
comparison with the future situation without any EU policy change (baseline scenario).

Figure 1: Organization of the project
WP4: Management and

coordination
Task 4.1: Management
including KO meeting
and interim reports
WP 1: Current situation
Task 1.1: Literature review
Task 1.2 Inventory slaughterhouses, use restraining devices, EU; including
legislation and enforcement.
Task 1.3 Third countries
Output
State of art in EU countries
Determination of sample
Task 4.2: Joint meeting

for standardisation of
methodology
Task 4.3:
Joint meetings WP2 &

WP3
WP2: Welfare implications
WP
3:
implications
Task 2.1: Preparation of

slaughterhouse
visits
(development of protocol)
Task 3.1: Preparation and

testing of questionnaires and
meetings
Output:
Protocol for welfare assessment
and proposed methodology for
interview/meeting
Task 2.2: Visits to the

slaughterhouses
and
data
collection
Welfare assessment
Economics for WP 3
Working conditions for
WP3
Interviews with
slaughtermen
Task 2.3: Data analysis and
Output:
interpretation.
Draft final report on welfare
assessment
Joint meetings WP2 &

WP3
Socio-economic
Task 3.2: Data collection

(combined with Task 2.2)
Stakeholders Interviews
Meetings
with
representatives
religious
SWOT analysis of different

restraint devices
Task
3.3:
scenarios
Baseline
and
Output:
Socio-economic implications
Analysis of the different scenarios
Draft final report
Final report
2. OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY

The objectives of the project and the different tasks that were carried out are listed in figure
1. The project was divided in four work packages.
Work package 1: Current situation
The first work package aimed to describe the current situation in terms of restraint devices
and practices used for slaughtering bovine animals without stunning in the European Union
and in some third countries. Data were collected through questionnaires sent to the
competent authorities of the different Member States to provide an overview of the beef
meat production with and without stunning and the implementation of the Regulation (EC)
No 1099/2009. Then, a second survey for slaughterhouses was conducted for six selected
Member States (Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, The United-Kingdom) in
order to get an overview of restraint devices currently in used and of the practices.
This work package also included an updated literature review in order to describe the
scientific background available about the use of restraint systems for slaughter of bovine
animals without stunning.
The results of this work package were used to:
determine the sample of the slaughterhouses where socio-economic data were

collected (work package 3) and the sample of restraining systems that were studied
for their effect on animal welfare (work package 2)
design the method of assessment of welfare (work package 2)
design and analyse different scenario for future European policies (work package 3)
Work package 2: Welfare impacts

The main objective of this second work package was to compare the animal welfare
advantages and disadvantages of the different types of restraint systems commercially used
in European slaughterhouses for slaughtering bovine animals without stunning.
A common methodology was first established and tested in slaughterhouses during a joint
meeting of all partners in April 2013. Based on results of the work package 1, the sample for
data collection was designed to include:
both categories of bovine animals (calves and adults)

the diversity of restraint systems used in the seven selected Member States by
including the different positions of the animals at the time of bleeding (upright,
lateral and inverted)
different restraint device designs and practices that have been previously suggested
to have particular impacts on animal welfare (positive and negative).
5

Table 1 : Summary of the location visited in the different countries and the groups of animals
assessed according to the category of animals and the restraining method
(Source: BoRest study Methodology)
Number of
animals
assessed
SH1
SH2
SH3
SH4
SH5
SH6
SH7
SH8
SH9
SH10
SH11
SH12
SH13
Restraining
method of
the group
of animals
observed
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
lateral
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Lateral
Upright
Inverted
Inverted
Italy
The
Netherlands
Belgium
SH14
SH15
SH16
SH16
SH8
SH12
SH17
SH17
SH18
Upright
Upright
Inverted
Upright
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Upright
Inverted
56
28
64
9
58
36
16
82
68
6**
18
22***
(21)
1,113***
(1,105)
Category
of
animals
Country
Slaughterhouse
code
Adults
Spain
France
Italy
Calves
Total
Number
The
Netherlands
United
Kingdom
France
60
60
20
60
60
57
63
51
60
60
60
24
61
*SH16 upright not included in the analysis

** Lacking data from Ireland and Israel (1 location expected in each country)
*** 25 groups expected and 1500 animals expected
(Number of observations groups or animals - Included in the analysis)
Initial plan was to collect data from sixty animals per slaughterhouse, in twenty-five
slaughterhouses of seven Member States and Israel (1,500 animals in the overall). It was
expected that each slaughterhouse would be considered as a statistical unit characterized by
the restraint device used and the position of the animals at the time of bleeding.
However, it was decided with Commission officials to include both calves and bovine adults
in the sample (due to the number of calves slaughtered without stunning). Consequently, in
some locations i.e. slaughterhouses, where both bovine adults and calves were
slaughtered but in separate line or according to different restraining method, we considered
each group from the two categories of animals as an independent statistical unit.
The visits finally carried out were depending on the willingness of slaughterhouses to
participate in the survey and their characteristics. Eventually, eighteen locations were visited
representing 22 groups of animals assessed (Table 1).
Deviation from expected number of visits was observed in the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands and Israel due to the refusal of some contacted slaughterhouses to participate.
While, no visits were conducted in Ireland because of delays in completion of survey 1 by the
competent authority, despite the best efforts of the research teams. In order to partially
compensate this deviation, additional observations or visits were organised in some
slaughterhouses and in some countries.
Furthermore, in some cases, due to the line speed or the willingness of slaughterhouses to
collaborate, a reduced number of animals was observed compared to the sixty expected.
This was compensated partly by additional days of observations. Finally, for the analysis, we
considered that this had only a limited effect.
Consequently, at the end, 21 groups representing 1,105 animals assessed were included in
the analysis and the twenty second one (9 animals) was used only for additional information.
Data collection in slaughterhouses took place from July to December 2013. In each
slaughterhouse, animal welfare was assessed on a random sample of animals from the entry
in the restraining system to the release out of the device after the cut. Data were collected
on the device, the operating procedure, the practices of operators, the behaviour of the
animals, the characteristic of the bleeding and the sign of consciousness.
All data were centralized and processed to produce descriptive statistics. These statistics
were further classified according to opinion of four experts on the project. Based on their
judgement, key points for operating procedure, indicators of monitoring and range of best
practices observable were proposed.
Work package 3: Socio economic implications

The goal of this work package was to determine the socio-economic implications of the
different restraint systems with special attention to economics, religious expectation and
freedom, working condition and safety of operators.
At the end, different scenarios of future EU policy options were proposed and analysed
according to their effect on different judgement area, in particular animal welfare and socioeconomic implications.
To achieve this goal, the following tasks were carried out:
Meetings with religious representatives in the selected Member States

A synthesis of economic data, religious opinion, working condition and animal
welfare in order to perform a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats) analysis for restraint systems taking into account the competitiveness of EU
slaughterhouses, the social implications, the freedom of religion and the welfare of
animals.
An evaluation of the future situation in EU based on different scenarios including the
baseline and different EU policy options to implement new technical rules or to
phase out certain restraining systems.
Data about animal welfare, economics of slaughterhouse and work safety were collected
during visits of slaughterhouses that took place during the work package 2. Meetings with
religious representative were carried out by each partner in the selected Member States and
were based on a common methodology consisting in the collection of opinion regarding the
two main restraint systems (upright and inverted). Meetings took place from November
2013 to March 2014. Future EU options and scenarios were proposed and discussed during
the two steering committees (January and November 2013) and refined following direct
exchanges with DG SANCO. Analyses were carried out from November 2013 to April 2014
taking into account the output from the other tasks.
Work Package 4: Management and coordination
The main objective of this Work Package was to ensure a close coordination between the
different tasks. To achieve this objective, different tasks were performed:
Monthly phone meeting of the consortium, organization of the steering committees

(January 2013, November 2013 and March 2015) and exchanges with DG SANCO.
Organization of a joint meeting (April 2013) between all partners to analyse the first
output of WP 1 and to finalise the methodology used for data collection on welfare
and collection of social and economic data.
Reporting.
Table 2 : Basic principles of restraint device design common for all restrain systems - adapted from
Grandins (2013)
(Source: BoRest study literature survey)
Provision of non-slip flooring surfaces leading up to and in the pen.

Raceways/entrance ways should be curved and avoid sharp corners to prevent balking and
allow easy access into the pen.
There should be no obstructions that can cause the animals to balk or cause injury when
entering or being restrained in the pen.
There should be sufficient lighting to minimise balking.
Equipment should be engineered to minimise noise that could cause agitation/distress to the
animals.
All parts of the restraint pen that contact the animal should move with smooth, steady
motion, as sudden jerky motions may cause the animal to become agitated / distressed.
The pressure applied by the device should not be excessive. The application of excessive
pressure could cause struggling, vocalizations, pain and distress.
Stunning or slaughter without stunning should occur immediately after the animal is fully
restrained.
Solid panels should be used to prevent entering animals from seeing people or moving
equipment.
Animals must be irrecoverably insensible before release from the pen.
The pen should be designed to allow the safe and effective ejection of the carcase from the
device, without putting the operators in harms way.
10
3. REVIEW OF THE CURRENT LITERATURE ON UPRIGHT AND

ROTATING RESTRAINT SYSTEMS FOR SLAUGHTER OF BOVINE
ANIMALS WITHOUT STUNNING
Task leader: T. Gibson (RVC)
INTRODUCTION
An essential requirement for the slaughter of animals with or without stunning is adequate
restraint. The objective of the different systems is to restrain the animal in the pen so that
stunning and slaughter can be performed effectively, safely, while minimising stress, distress
and pain to the animals (Anil 2012). Table 2 highlights some of the basic principles of
restraint design that are common to all systems.
Inadequate restraint is an important welfare concern for slaughter with and without
stunning. During slaughter without stunning it is essential for welfare and religious
requirements that the animals are sufficiently restrained. It is important that the restraint
system allows the operator to perform a sufficient cut to the ventral surfaces of the neck
that severs the jugular veins, carotid arteries, trachea, oesophagus, connective tissue, vagus
and other sensory nerves. The restraint should be designed to allow the wound site to
remain open to enable sufficient bleeding, while preventing further stimulation of the
wound. Furthermore the animal should be restrained for a sufficient period post-cut to allow
exsanguination, onset of insensibility/unconsciousness and to minimise the risk of injuries to
slaughterhouse staff.
Restraint systems for slaughter without stunning often incorporate both body and
head/neck holder devices that allow the operation of the specific slaughter method. Devices
should be designed to hold the animal sufficiently to facilitate immobilization, while not
causing significant discomfort, pain, stress or distress. Cattle when distressed in
slaughterhouses often struggle, kick, vocalize and attempt to escape. This can lead to
hesitation when entering the restraint, poor presentation in the restraint and frustration in
slaughterhouse staff which can sometimes lead to the excessive use of electric cattle prods
to position the animal. In both rotating and upright systems the design of the neck yoke and
chin-lift i.e. the head/neck holder has an important impact on the performance of the cut.
The chin-lift should provide good access to the neck, allow for efficient cutting and bleeding,
avoid excessive neck tension (which could be painful), should not obscure the face, eyes (for
assessment of consciousness/sensibility) or potential stunning positions (if a post-cut stun is
required). Furthermore the metal work of the chin-lift must not obstruct the cutting action.
In Europe a variety of restraint systems are used for the slaughter without stunning of
bovine animals.
11
Figure 2 : Minimum requirements for restraint device (Source: Grandin)
Figure 3 : Example of rotating restraint in inverted position (source: Banss)
12
They can be broadly grouped into:

Rotating restraints: where the animal is slaughtered in dorsal (inverted 180o) or
lateral recumbency (90o).
Upright restraints: where the animal is slaughtered in the upright position.
Examples of design of upright restraint (ASPCA) and rotating restraint are given in figures 2
and 3 respectively. Both devices should be operated from rear to front. After entrance of
the animals, the back or rear pusher is engaged, this is followed by the belly lift (in case of
upright restraint) or the lateral pusher (in case of rotating restraint). Finally the head and
neck is restrained with the chin-lift and neck yoke. With well-designed and operated rotating
restraints, the rotation should start immediately after the head and neck is restrained. After
performance of the cut to the ventral tissues of the neck by the slaughterman, there may be
rotation back to upright position depending on the operating procedure of slaughterhouses.
Rotating restraint may be also used for slaughter in upright position.
The slaughter of un-stunned cattle in dorsal recumbency (inverted) is prohibited in many
countries (Grandin 1994), because of the stress involved in inverting the animal (Dun 1990,
Grandin & Regenstein 1994, Shragge & Price 2004). Upright restraining systems have
replaced inverted systems in many countries (Gregory 2005). In the EU, Slovakia, Denmark
and the United Kingdom prohibit the use of rotating or inverted restraint pens for use for
slaughter without stunning. In the UK, it is a legal requirement that cattle slaughtered
without stunning are restrained in an upright pen (Rosen 2004), all pens in operation are to
be approved by the Minister (Anon 1995). Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 (2009)
states that for animals killed without prior stunning, checks should be made to ensure that
animals do not present any signs of consciousness or sensibility before being released from
restraint. Current UK legislation makes it mandatory for cattle slaughtered without
stunning, to remain in the upright restraint (including chin-lift) until unconscious and not
before the expiry of 30 seconds (Anon 1995).
Rotating designs are widely used in many other EU countries and are currently allowed
under Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009. In The Netherlands representatives of the Jewish and
Muslim communities with the Ministry of Economic Affairs, have agreed on a period where if
the animal is still conscious 40 seconds after the neck cut, the animal is to be immediately
stunned (Tyler 2012). In France, the slaughterhouse industry has produced in consultation
with the Ministry and the National Food Safety Agency, guidelines on good practice at
slaughter (Guide to Good Practices of Animal Care at Slaughter). The guidelines detail
standard operating procedures for minimizing risks of poor welfare when using rotating
pens. In the guidelines a mandatory period of restraint of, at least, 45 seconds after the cut
(and before checking for sign of consciousness) for all categories of cattle is specified.
13
14
It is further recommended in the guidelines that any cattle that still display signs of
consciousness/sensibility after this period, are immediately stunned (http://www.interbev.fr/
ressource/guide-de-bonnes-pratiques-pour-la-maitrise-de-la-protection-animale-des-bovins-a-labattoir/).
A number of bodies have stated that the inversion of cattle for slaughter without stunning
could result in welfare compromise compared to upright restraint (Blokhuis, et al. 2004,
FAWC 1995, Wathes 2012). Many of the restraint systems used in slaughterhouses are
modified or custom made, often making it difficult to make assessments on the relative
merits and disadvantages of different systems. It is important to note that irrespective of the
system or slaughter method, all restraints including those of the highest standards are open
to operator abuse if used incorrectly and can result in poor animal welfare (Grandin &
Regenstein 1994). It is important with any restraint system employed, that adequate training
and supervision are also provided.
This review aims to critically examine the major studies examining upright and rotating
restrain systems in regards to animal welfare. The shackling and hoisting of live cattle is
prohibited in Europe and is not discussed.
In summary:
There are a variety of restraint systems that are employed by slaughterhouses for the
slaughter of cattle without stunning. These can be broadly broken down into upright and
rotating systems (45o, 90o and 180o). The objective is to restrain the animal so that slaughter
can be performed effectively and without compromising worker safety. Both types of
devices generally include: rear, ventral (upright) lateral and head holding restraints. They
should be operated from rear to front and improper use can compromise animal welfare.
Rotating designs are used in a number of EU countries but a few of Member States prohibit
the use of rotating restraint due to animal welfare concerns.
15
16
ROTATING RESTRAINT
The first widely adopted mechanized restrain pen for slaughter without stunning of cattle
was the Weinberg casting pen (Grandin 1980). When introduced it was seen as a major
improvement over traditional casting or shackling systems in both slaughterhouse worker
safety and animal welfare (Hall 1927, Levinger 1979). Since the introduction of the Weinberg
pen there has been significant alteration to the original design and operation (by
manufacturers such as Facomia, Banss, Dyne, North British, Nawi). Now the pens are
operated by electrical or hydraulic systems and dont rely on manual operation like the
original Weinberg design. Rotating pens, restrain the animal after they enter with adjusting
side plates, back-pusher, neck yoke and chin-lift. Then the animal is rotated 45 , 90 or 180
depending on the practice of the slaughterhouses. Grandin and Regenstein (1994) stated
that improved rotating pens, such as the Facomia pen, are probably less stressful for the
animal than the original Weinberg design, however the authors did further state that a
well-designed upright restraint system would be more comfortable for cattle. Rotating
systems should be designed to quickly and smoothly restrain and rotate the animal without
interruption. This is to reduce the time spent restrained in the unnatural and possibly
stressful position.
Much of the public and scientific debate on the welfare aspects of rotating restraint systems
have focused on issues regarding unnatural posture, abdominal pressure on visceral tissues,
and stress during inversion. Van Oers (as cited in Gregory (2005)) observed more vigorous
struggling in animals where the chin-lift was applied after the animal was inverted compared
to prior to inversion. This suggests that in inverted designs it is important that the chin-lift is
applied prior to the process of inversion. Wagner (1990) reported that in cattle both lateral
and dorsal recumbency can significantly impair arterial oxygenation. It was hypothesised
that lateral or dorsal recumbency can result in reduced lung volumes, due to compression of
the thoracic cavity by the weight of the rumen and abdominal viscera pressing against the
diaphragm. Furthermore in another study the process of inversion from an upright position
was demonstrated to significantly decrease arterial blood oxygenation (P<0.001) in
conscious restrained cattle due to the inhibition of oxygenation of blood in the lungs
(Tagawa, et al. 1994). Inversion also resulted in significantly increased plasma cortisol
concentrations (control 1.6 + 1.0; inverted 4.8 + 2.2 g/dl, P<0.001) reaching peak
concentrations 30 minutes after onset of inversion, compared to upright or lateral restraint
(Tagawa, et al. 1994). This suggests that inversion causes a larger stress response compared
to upright or lateral restraint.
17
18
However in a study comparing restraint systems for claw trimming of cows, it was reported
that cattle restraint upright in a walk-in crush had significantly higher faecal cortisol
metabolite concentrations nine hours after trimming compared to those trimmed at 90o on
a tilt table (mean concentrations of 292 and 218 nmol/kg respectively, P<0.001). The authors
associated this difference with the significantly increased time required to perform the
procedure in the walk-in crush compared to the tilt table (Pesenhofer, et al. 2006).
In an slaughterhouse based experiment, Dunn (1990) reported significantly increased
cortisol (upright 143.2+102.0; inverted 259.6 + 104.0 nmol/l, P<0.001), haematocrit (upright
0.41 + 0.03; inverted 0.47 + 0.03 litres/litre, P<0.001) values and vocalisations (upright 0.3 +
0.75; inverted 4.65 + 6.09, P<0.05) in cattle slaughtered in the inverted Weinberg pen
compared to the upright position. Bourguet et al (2011), reported cattle restrained in
rotating pens had an increased incidence of vocalisations per animal compared to those in
upright stunning pens without head or body restraint (0.73 + 0.2; 0.02 + 0.02 respectively).
However 20% of the animals in rotating pen vocalised before inversion and the number of
vocalisations was significantly reduced (10.5%) following inversion prior to the neck cut
(P<0.03) (Bourguet, et al. 2011). The authors hypothesised that the physical restraint in the
rotating pen may have exerted too much pressure on some animals.
It has been suggested that lateral restraint can reduce the pressure of the rumen depressing
on the internal organs and diaphragm, compared to full 180 inversion (Von Holleben, et al.
2010). The Dialrel project suggested that lateral restraint can reduce pressure on the aorta,
major veins and diaphragm compared to full inverted restraint (Von Holleben, et al. 2010).
Petty et al (1994) found that cattle restrained in lateral recumbency during Shechita and
secular (captive bolt stunning) slaughter showed no significant difference in catecholamine
and cortisol concentrations compared to upright restraint, the authors suggested that these
animals were not significantly stressed by lateral recumbency. Lambooij (2012) reported
that independent of the angle (90, 120, 180), inversion caused a significant increase in
heart rate (from already raised levels following handling and entrance into the restraint)
from 113-118 to 126-138 beats/min (bpm) (P<0.05), suggesting a stress mediated
sympathetic response. Furthermore the authors found a significant decrease in oxygen
saturation from entrance into the restraint and rotation (P=0.02) (Lambooij, et al. 2012).
Work by Rushen (1986) reported that sheep in a forced paired-choice experiment, found
upright restraint in a wire cage (0.5 x 1.2 x 0.9 metres) compared to manual inversion by a
human less aversive. This result should be taken with caution as the presence of a human
and the isolation of sheep during inversion, compared to the sheep in the wire cage which
were surrounded by 4-6 sheep would be expected to have influenced the results.
19
20
The advantage of the 180 rotating systems is that they often provide good presentation of
the ventral surface of the neck for the neck incision. However a criticism of inverted restraint
positions is that blood and rumen content can contact the cranial and caudal aspects of the
wound surface. This could result in carcass contamination, aspiration of liquid into the
respiratory tract (Blokhuis, et al. 2004, Grandin & Regenstein 1994), and possible further
stimulation of the wound site which could cause pain and distress (Gibson, et al. 2009a).
However blood aspiration in the respiratory tract has been reported in upright restrained
cattle (Gregory, et al. 2009).
In summary:
Since the introduction of the Weinberg pen, there have been significant alterations to the
original design of rotating restraints. The animal welfare issues that have been associated
with inverted restraints include: restraint in a unnatural posture, abdominal pressure on
visceral tissues, stress during inversion and duration of inversion. It is suggested that
immobilization, including head, should be carried prior to inversion.
21
22
UPRIGHT RESTRAINT
Upright restraint systems confine cattle in an upright position for slaughter. This can either
be free standing or straddling a centre track conveyor restrainer in sternal recumbency,
where the feet are off the floor and the conveyor and walls support the body weight via the
brisket, abdomen and flanks (Grandin 1990). The head is secured and stretched by a chin-lift
into position for the ventral neck cut, either mechanically (hydraulic or electrical) or
sometimes manually for calves. Many systems such as the Cincinnati or ASPCA pen have a
back-pusher/tailgate and belly plate that further confines the animal. Dunn (1990) reported
that when entering the upright ASPCA pen some animals stopped to investigate the belly
plate on the floor before walking over it to enter the pen. To improve entry into upright
restraints it has been recommended that the belly plate when loading the animal should be
recessed into the floor (flush with the floor surface), this will prevent the plate from being an
obstruction and facilitate more effective entry (Grandin 1992).
A common complaint of upright systems is that animals can be over restrained. Poorly
designed upright restraints can apply excessive pressure (Berg & Jakobsson 2007, Grandin &
Regenstein 1994). For example excessive pressure of the back-pusher, lifting of animals with
the belly plate (problematic with smaller or young stock) and excessive neck tension
(hyperextension) with the chin-lift, could all cause discomfort, pain and suffering. Grandin
(1998) reported that in two separate slaughterhouses 3.25% and 8% of cattle vocalized due
to excessive pressure of the back-pusher and chin-lift respectively. In the second
slaughterhouse it was found that animals were initially quiet in the chin-lift, but vocalized as
the pressure was increased (Grandin 1998). The Dialrel project reported that during the spot
visits 63% of cattle restrained in upright pens showed struggling compared to 37% in
inverted pens (Velarde & Cenci-Goga 2010), potentially due to excessive pressure from the
chin-lift, back-pusher and belly plate. Chin-lifts and back-pushers should be designed with
pressure limiting devices when possible (Grandin 1992, Grandin & Regenstein 1994), and
should be operated with the concept of optimal pressure required to firmly restrain the
animal, but not cause discomfort (Grandin & Regenstein 1994). Even with the use of the
chin-lift and neck yoke, the ventral cutting surface of the neck in upright pens is less well
presented than for animals restrained in the inverted position. The cut is made upwards
against the ventral aspect of the neck, this makes the cut more awkward (Gregory 2005).
Furthermore due to the action of the cut, it is possible to incompletely severe the carotids
on the contralateral side to the operator. When slaughtering animals in upright restraints it
is important to assess the success or otherwise of the neck cut either visually (blood flow) or
by palpation, however this can be difficult in upright restrained animals. A greater level of
skill may be required to achieve an appropriate cut and manage the post-cut period with
slaughter of cattle in the upright versus the inverted positions. Work on the Dialrel project
reported that in the slaughterhouses surveyed (n=12, 315 animals) the mean number of cuts
23
24
performed was higher for cattle restrained in upright (9) compared to 180 (5), 90 (3) and
45 (1) pens (Velarde & Cenci-Goga 2010).
It has been stated that the advantage of the chin-lift is that it can help in the prevention of
re-occlusion of the carotid arteries (Rosen 2004). However research has demonstrated that
the prevalence of false aneurysm formation is not influenced by method of restraint
(rotating pen; manual casting into lateral recumbency; upright restraint pen; shackled by
one leg and lowered into lateral recumbency) (P>0.05) (Gregory, et al. 2008). A disadvantage
of upright pens from the operators perspective is that when performing the cut they are
more likely to be covered with blood because of their position relative to the cut (Gregory
2005).
There have been concerns that during slaughter without stunning animals with prolonged
sensibility could aspirate blood into the respiratory tract (Grandin & Regenstein 1994,
Gregory, et al. 2009). This could cause irritation and distress. Previously concern over blood
aspiration was focused on cattle held in inverted systems (Blokhuis, et al. 2004). Recent
research has shown that in cattle slaughtered in the upright position by Shechita and
Dhabiha that 19% and 58% had substantial amounts of blood in the trachea respectively
(Gregory, et al. 2009). Severance of the vagus nerves was previously thought to prevent
lower respiratory irritation. However stimulation of the glottis (innervated by the cranial
laryngeal nerve) and hemorrhage or blood entering the lower respiratory tract (innervated
by a collateral spinal afferent pathway) could cause distress and suffering (Gregory, et al.
2009). Grandin and Regenstein (1994) reported that in some slaughterhouses where cattle
are released from the upright restraint pen before becoming insensible, that welfare can be
compromised when the neck cut wound edges contact each other or make contact with the
metal work of the restraint. This would be likely to cause further pain and suffering (Von
Holleben, et al. 2010), therefore it is essential that the animal is completely insensible before
release from the pen.
In summary:
A common complaint of upright systems is that animals can be over restrained.
Consequently, they should be operated with the concept of optimal pressure. Even with
the use of head holder, the ventral cutting surface of the neck in upright pens compared
with rotating pens is less well presented. This may lead to more awkward cut and impaired
working conditions.
25

Table 3 : Studies investigating the interval between entry and slaughter for rotating and upright
restraint systems (standard deviation SD; standard error SE)
Restraint
Mean interval between
Number of
entry and slaughter
animals
Reference
(seconds)
Rotating (180o)
103.8 + 18.4 (SD)
18
Upright
11.1 + 3.8 (SD)
50
(Dun 1990)
Rotating (180o)
69.2 (range 19 241)
1628
Upright*
14.3 (range 2 120)
1563
Rotating (90o)
115.8
14
(Cenci-Goga,
Upright
97.5
30
2010)
17.6 + 2.7 (SE)
95
(Bourguet, et al. 2011)
Rotating (180o)
(Koorts 1991)
et
al.
* Held in the same pen but upright and stunned.

Interval between end of inversion and the neck cut
Table 4: Medium time and range (seconds) for entry and initiation of physical of restraint, start of
restraint and end of rotation, and end of rotation and cut in cattle slaughter without stunning
(Warin-Ramette & Mirabito 2010)
Angle of
Entry and start of
Start of restraint
End of rotation
Number of
rotation
restraint
and end of
and neck cut
animals
(seconds)
rotation (seconds)
(seconds)
180o
10 (7-37)
16 (12-111)
4 (1-14)
116
135o
19 (5-110)
15 (10-54)
1 (1-3)
35
<90o
12 (1-107)*
4 (1-13)*
1 (1-34)
108
* Limit between the 2 periods was difficult to evaluate due to observer position
26
ENTRY TO SLAUGHTER INTERVAL

The interval from entry of the animal into the pen and the act of slaughter with or without
stunning has direct consequences on animal welfare. Delays in operation of the
restraint/slaughter procedure can cause undue stress, pain and distress to the animal. Table
3 details studies that have reported the interval between entry and slaughter for rotating
and upright restraint systems. The findings suggest that for the majority of restraint designs
assessed the interval between entry and restraint is longer for rotating systems (90 and
180) compared to upright. However it is important to note that the studies of Dunn (1990)
and Koots (1991) were performed with the older Weinberg restraint system. Bourguet et al
(2011) reported that of 95 animals observed in a modern rotating pen for Dhabiha slaughter,
the interval between end of inversion and the neck cut was 17.6 + 2.7 seconds. They also
reported a significant correlation between percent haematocrit and delays before inversion
(r=0.55, P=0.008) of cattle in the rotating pen. Meanwhile in a study by Warin (2009) it was
observed that the median time from start of restraint and completion of rotation was
longest for cattle restrained in the 180o (range 12-111) compared to 135o (range 10-54) and
<90o (range 1-13) positions (Table 4). While the interval between end of rotation and neck
cut for all restraint positions ranged from 1 to 34 seconds (n=259). Modern rotating restraint
systems rotate the animal around its own axis. It has been observed that pens that are
designed to rotate outside of the animals own axis can take a prolonged period of time from
initiation of restraint to full 180o rotation (range 53-77 seconds, un-published data).
Anil (2012) stated that some designs of rotating pens can take an unduly long period to
rotate and present the animal for slaughter. Furthermore, Velarde and Cenci-Coga (2010)
reported that during the Dialrel slaughterhouse spot visits the restraint to cut interval for
cattle was longer in animals restrained at 45, 90 compared to those inverted 180 or in the
upright position. Koorts (1991) compared struggling in cattle restrained in the inverted
position for Shechita slaughter, with cattle restrained in the same pen but in a upright
position for secular slaughter (captive bolt stunning). It was reported that animals in the
upright position struggled less with 68.5% been classified as calm compared to 31.2% in the
inverted position. Warin-Ramette and Mirabito (2010) reported in a study of rotating
restraint systems in France that the frequency of vocalizations was directly linked to the time
spent by the animals in inverted position (table 4).
In summary:
Delays between entry of the animal into the pen and the act of slaughter with or without
stunning can cause undue stress, pain and distress to the animal. The findings suggest that
for the majority of restraint designs assessed the interval between entry and restraint is
longer for rotating systems (90 and 180) compared to upright.
27
Table 5 : Studies investigating the time to insensibility after ventral neck incision slaughter without
prior stunning in cattle and the parameters reported.
Restrain
Parameter
Mean time to
insensibility +
SD (seconds)
EEG, B
Time to
insensibility
range
(seconds)
2-10
EEG
3.5-5
EEG
10-23
Upright
EEG, B
10
EEG, B
28-168
EEG
Upright
34-85
Reference
Levinger
(1961)
Nangeroni and Kennett
(1964)
Schulze et al (1978)
Gro (1979)
Blackmore and Newhook
(1981); Blackmore et al
(1983)
Newhook and Blackmore
(1982)
Blackmore (1984)
Upright
146 (+ SD 174)
20-385
Upright
VEP
17 (+ SD 4)
11.5-23
Rotated
(180o)
Upright
SEP, VEP
72 (+ SD 48)
19-113
Gregory and Wotton

(1984b)
Daly et al (1988)
ECoG
10-52
Bager et al (1992)
Rotated
(180o)
Upright
EEG
34 (+ SD 16)*
16-63*
Gibson (2009)
TLP
20 (+ SD 33)
-265
Gregory et al (2010)
10-210
Bourguet et al (2011)
B, EEG, CD
80
Lambooij et al (2012)
TLP
18 (+ SD 24)
1-257
Rotated
(180o)
Rotated
(90o, 120o,
180o)
Upright
Gibson et al unpublished
preliminary data
B: behaviour; CD: correlation dimension analysis; ECoG: electrocorticogram; EEG: electroencephalogram; SEP:
somatosensory evoked potentials; TLP: time to loss of posture; VEP: visually evoked potentials. * Animals
where anaesthetised, time to loss of active EEG waveform.
28
TIME TO INSENSIBILITY IN ROTATING AND UPRIGHT RESTRAINTS

During slaughter without stunning there is a window following the neck incision and before
the onset of cerebral hypoxia and insensibility during which the animal is both conscious and
sensible to pain, distress and stress (Gibson, et al. 2009a, Gibson, et al. 2009b). There is a
range in time to insensibility for all species and this is shortest and narrowest in sheep (2 to
14 seconds), then in pigs (13 to 25 seconds), poultry (12 to 26 seconds) and longest and
widest in cattle (2 to 385 seconds) (Bager, et al. 1992, Barnett, et al. 2007, Blackmore 1984,
Blackmore & Newhook 1981, Blackmore, et al. 1979, Bourguet, et al. 2011, Daly, et al. 1988,
Gregory, et al. 2010, Gregory & Wotton 1984a, b, Gro 1979, Lambooij, et al. 2012, Levinger
1961, Nangeroni & Kennett 1964, Newhook & Blackmore 1982, Wotton & Gregory 1986). In
contrast, acute arrest of cerebral blood circulation in normal healthy young men with the
use of a cervical pressure cuff has been demonstrated to produce a loss of consciousness on
average in 6.8 seconds (range of 6.4 to 6.9) (Estrella, et al. 1992, Rossen, et al. 1943). Table 5
details studies that have examined time to insensibility in cattle and the different slaughter
positions used. The reported times to insensibility ranged from 2 to 385 seconds. Based on
the limited data it can be concluded that there is little effect of restraint system on time to
insensibility (upright 1-385; rotating 10-210 seconds).
Caution must be taken when interpreting this data, as the restraint systems used varied
significantly between the studies, there are differences between experimental and
slaughterhouse observational based experiments, and variations in sample sizes. However it
can be similarly concluded that:
The time to undoubted insensibility is longest in cattle compared to other species.

The causation of this is potentially due to the anatomy of the blood supply to the
brain in different species and the formation of false aneurysms (carotid occlusion) on
the carotid arteries during and after slaughter in cattle.
There is a large amount of variability between individual cattle in the time to
undoubted insensibility.
Restraint appears not to have a significant effect on the time to undoubted
insensibility, however further data is required to validate this hypothesis.
In summary:
After the neck incision and before the onset of cerebral hypoxia and insensibility, there is a
window during which the animal is both conscious and sensible to pain, distress and stress.
The range in time for bovine animals is the longest and widest (2 to 385 seconds) compared
with other farm animals. Based on the limited data available, it can be concluded that there
is little effect of restraint system on time to loss of sensibility, however further data is
required to validate this hypothesis.
29
30
CONCLUSION
Based on the existing literature both rotating and upright restraint systems have strengths
and weakness. Specific animal welfare concerns of rotating systems are delays in operation
between entry and slaughter, and pain/stress/distress from being restrained in an unnatural
position. While upright restraints can cause pain and distress to the animal if excessive
pressure is applied, and more skill is required to perform a successful neck cut. Irrespective
of restraint pen, they should be designed to allow a post-cut stun if required; this is for any
animals that are declared as non-kosher, non-halal, or take a prolonged period to die.
Furthermore for both restraint systems the cutting technique needs to be sufficient to
achieve complete severance of the major blood vessels of the neck to allow for
exsanguination.
31
32
4. CURRENT SITUATION OF THE RESTRAINT PRACTICES OF BOVINE

ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT STUNNING
Task leader: V. Marzin (Institut de lElevage)
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this part of the study was to provide an overview of the general situation of
meat production and restraining practices used for religious slaughter in the European Union
and in some third countries.
In the EU, we emphasized the current situation in six Member States (Belgium, France, Italy,
Spain, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom) where further investigations and
assessment were carried out in slaughterhouses during the project. In these countries,
details were collected, at slaughterhouses level, about the restraint devices used and the
restraining procedure for slaughtering bovine animals without stunning. The situation was
not further assessed in Germany because no slaughter without stunning was performed
according to the competent authorities at the time we contacted them1.
METHODOLOGY
The data collection was based on a two-step survey in Member States.
The competent authorities were firstly interviewed to collect general information on
slaughter without stunning, implementation of the Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 and if
possible practices in terms of type of restraining systems in use (Annex 1). This survey was
carried out in all Member States and in some third countries.
In the second step, slaughterhouses licensed to practice slaughter without stunning in six
Member States (FR, BE, UK, NL, ES, IT) were sent a questionnaire (Annex 2) to get
information about their used restraint system and operating procedure.
It was first intended to carry out the detailed investigations in Ireland but the answer to the
questionnaire from the competent authority was received too late to allow us to include
Ireland in our sample.
Slaughter without stunning is performed in Germany according to a recent audit

DG(SANCO)2014-7073 but probably at a very limited scale.
33
Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 27 Member

States in 2012
(source Borest, 'competent authority survey')
Adults
Calves (<8 months)
5 000 000
4 500 000
Number of heads
4 000 000
3 500 000
3 000 000
2 500 000
2 000 000
1 500 000
1 000 000
500 000
FR
DE
IT
UK
ES
NL
PL
IE
BE
AT
DK
SE
PT
FI
CZ
EL
LT
RO
SI
HU
LV
SK
EE
LU
BG
CY
MT
Figure 4 : Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 27 Member States
(Source: BoRest study competent authorities survey-Data: 2012 )
Table 6 : General situation of slaughter without stunning practices in the 27 Member States
(Source BoRest study competent authorities survey-Data: 2012)
Member states where slaughter without stunning

was performed in 2012
(* slaughter without stunning was allowed only if
a post-cut stun was applied)
Member States where slaughter without stunning

was not performed in 2012 (forbidden or not
performed for other reasons)
No data available
Austria*
Belgium
France
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia*
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Lithuania
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia*
Spain
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
Luxemburg
Malta
Poland
Slovenia
Sweden
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Greece
34
RESULTS
The questionnaires have been collected from 23 Member States including all the selected
countries. Conversely, no data was received from Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Greece.
One of the expected results from the questionnaire sent to competent authorities was the
list of slaughterhouses known to perform religious slaughter. We expected to use these lists
to submit to the second questionnaire for a detailed analysis of the practice in these
slaughterhouses. However, it appeared that in some countries, the list was not available
because of lack of centralization or because of confidentiality rules; this was the case in
France and the UK respectively. In these countries, slaughterhouses were identified from
other sources (for example, from knowledge of partners, animal welfare non-governmental
organizations and industry organizations). In other case, the list obtained needed to be
updated. In Italy, for instance, based on phone call, it appeared that one third of
slaughterhouses listed are closed or do no longer perform slaughter without stunning.
OVERVIEW OF MEAT PRODUCTION AND RESTRAINT PRACTICES USED FOR

RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER OF BOVINE ANIMALS IN EUROPEAN UNION
NUMBER OF ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED IN THE 27 MEMBER STATES IN 2012
In the 27 Member States, 25 million bovine animals were slaughtered in 2012. It

corresponds to almost 20 million adults and 5 million calves (Figure 4).
GENERAL SITUATION OF SLAUGHTER PRACTICES IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2012
According to competent authorities, slaughter of bovine animals without stunning was
performed in 13 Member States in 2012. However, three of these (Austria, Latvia and
Slovakia) require slaughterhouses to systemically perform a stun after the throat cut.
On the other hand, 11 Member States didnt perform slaughter without stunning in 2012
(according to our respondents), because of a legal ban or for other reasons. Finally, the
situation in Bulgaria, Czech Republic2 and Greece was not included because no data were
provided by these countries (Table 6).
According to FVO report 2014-7060, slaughter without stunning is allowed in Czech

Republic under very specific conditions.
35

Table 7 : Number of slaughterhouses officially registered in the selected Member States and
number and percentage of slaughterhouses performing slaughter of bovine animals without
stunning
(Source: BoRest study competent authorities survey-Data: 2012)
Member State
Number of
slaughterhouses
officially registered
in the country
Number of
slaughterhouses
slaughtering bovine
animals without stunning
Percentage of the
slaughterhouses registered
that perform slaughter
without stunning
Austria
2,560
17
0,66%
Belgium
48
43
90%
France
210
99
47%
Hungary
64
10
16%
Ireland
31
23%
Italy
1,369
106*
8%
Latvia
48
4%
Portugal
41
No data
No data
Romania
100
5%
Slovakia
66
No data
No data
Spain
286
60
21%
The Netherlands
205***
67
33%
United Kingdom
227
18**
8%
TOTAL
5255
434
8%
* Current estimate based on partner contact suggest 74 plants slaughter without stunning (closed
slaughterhouses or no longer performing slaughter without stunning)
** Data from September 2011, current estimates suggest less than 10 plants slaughter without
stunning in the UK.
***Include all slaughterhouses of domestic ungulates
(http://www3.vwa.nl/EULijst%20SECTION%20I-Meat%20of%20domestic%20ungulates-Slaughterhouse.pdf
36
NUMBER OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES OFFICIALLY REGISTERED AND NUMBER OF

SLAUGHTERHOUSES THAT PERFORM SLAUGHTER OF BOVINE ANIMALS WITHOUT
STUNNING IN THE EU
According to the competent authorities, 10,294 slaughterhouses are officially registered

according to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for slaughtering cattle in the 27 Member States.
Considering the 13 countries where slaughter without stunning is allowed, 5,255
slaughterhouses are officially registered. Of these, 434 have the possibility to slaughter
cattle without stunning, corresponding to 8% of the slaughterhouses.
Data provided by the different countries show that there is a huge difference between
countries with a range of slaughterhouses approved varying from 10 to 90% of the total
(Table 7).
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT STUNNING IN THE
EU
According to the competent authorities who answered to the questionnaire, 2.1 million
bovine animals were slaughtered without stunning in 2012 (approximately 8% of the animals
slaughtered in the EU). Nearly all of these animals were slaughtered in seven Member states
(FR, NL, ES, UK, BE, IE, IT, sorted by descending number of bovine animals - Table 8).
However, it should be noticed that this number of animals should be seen as a maximum
because, in several slaughterhouses, post-cut stun may be performed depending on local
agreements with religious authorities that are not known by the competent authorities.
Furthermore, in some countries, figures collected in 2012 should be considered as rough
estimation that need to be updated in particular because the conditions for the derogation
were updated with the implementation of the new regulation in 2013 and because data
were not routinely collected at the time of the study (e. g. France).
37

Table 8 : Number and percentage of bovine animals slaughtered with and without stunning in each
of the 13 Member States where slaughter without stunning is performed
(Source: BoRest Study competent authorities survey-Data: 2012)
Country
Number of animals slaughtered

without stunning
% of animals slaughtered without

stunning in the country
France
1,269,009
24%
The Netherlands
310,000
15%
Spain
United Kingdom
Belgium
222,226
151,661
82,468
10%
6%
10%
Ireland
46,741
3.3%
Italy
Hungary
Latvia
Romania
Austria
Portugal
44,032
13,088
4,505
2,798
760
10
1%
13.5%
5%
2%
0,11%
0.003%
Slovakia
0.005%
TOTAL
2 147 300
Use of rotating or upright restraint device for bovine animals
according to competent authorities in Member States where
slaughter without stunning is performed (source: Borest
Study:'competent authorities survey')
Rotating pen
Upright pen
1 400 000
1 200 000
1 000 000
800 000
600 000
400 000
200 000
0
Figure 5 : Use of rotating or upright restraint device for bovine animals in the 13 Member States
where slaughter without stunning is performed
(Source: BoRest Study competent authorities survey-Data: 2012)
38
RESTRAINT SYSTEMS USED IN THE MEMBER STATES WHERE SLAUGHTER WITHOUT

STUNNING WAS PERFORMED
Rotating restraining systems are in use in all the main (in terms of number of bovine animals
slaughtered without stunning) Member States with the exception of the United Kingdom
where it is legally banned. These restraint systems are not in use in the following countries:
Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia (Figure 5).
Based on the estimates provided in Table 9, it can be calculated that more than 1.6 million
bovine animals are annually slaughtered without stunning in a rotating device (78% of the
animals slaughtered without stunning) while a little more than half a million are slaughtered
in an upright device (22% of the animals slaughtered without stunning).
The United Kingdom represented 28.3% of the total of the animals slaughtered using upright
device followed by Belgium (10.6%) and Ireland (6.2%) where more than two third of the
bovine animals were estimated to be slaughtered with this system according to competent
authorities.
On the contrary, in France, Hungary, The Netherlands and Spain, the rotating devices are the
most frequent ones (70 to 99% of the animals). In France, this may be considered as a rough
estimate because other sources gave higher percentage of plants using the rotating device.
In Spain, according to the data collectors, the information provided by the competent
authorities may have over-estimated the number of animals slaughtered in upright devices.
This could be due to confusion between the restraint systems used for conventional and
slaughter without stunning. In Italy, the numbers of animals are similar between the two
restraint systems. This may be linked to a high number of small slaughterhouses involved,
which did not invest in expensive restraining devices.
39

Table 9 : Use of rotating or up right restraint device for slaughter without stunning of the bovine
animals according to competent authorities in the Member States in 2012*
Country
Rotating device
Number of
% of animals
animals
Upright device
Number of
% of animals
animals
Belgium
25,565
31%
56,903
69%
France
1,142,108
90%
126,901
10%
Hungary
12,957
99%
131
1%
Ireland
13,555
29%
33,186
71%
Italy
22,016
50%
22,016
50%
Latvia
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
0
ND
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
4,505
10
2,798
2
100%
100%
100%
100%
Spain
146,669
66%
75,557
34%
The Netherlands
248,000
80%
62,000
20%
United Kingdom
0%
151,661
100%
TOTAL
1,610,870
78%
535,670
22%
*no data is available for Austria

Table 10 : Implementation of regulation EC NO1099/2009 regarding religious slaughter in the
Member States (Source BoRest study competent authorities survey-Data: 2013)
Member States where

slaughter without
stunning is allowed
without any explicit

authorization
Belgium
Portugal
under conditions provided by

competent authority
Ireland
France
Luxemburg
Estonia
Hungary
only if a post-cut stun is

performed
Member states where slaughter without pre-stunning is
forbidden
No data available
Romania
Germany
Cyprus
Italy
Spain
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
Austria
Slovakia
Latvia
Estonia
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Malta
Bulgaria
Poland*
Slovenia
Lithuania
Czech Republic
Greece
*This ban has been considered unconstitutional in December 2014 but applied during the study.
40
SITUATION IN SOME THIRD COUNTRIES

Different attempts were made to get information (direct contact, sending of questionnaires)
from North African and South American countries. Eventually, data were obtained from only
Israel and Argentina
In Israel, 105,800 bovine animals were slaughtered in 2012. 100% of the animals were
slaughtered without stunning in rotating devices.
In Argentina, 5,861,729 bovine animals were slaughtered in 2012 and 438,472 animals
without stunning (7.5% of the animals slaughtered). According to the information received,
100% of the bovine animals slaughtered without stunning were slaughtered in upright
position and there is no specific authorization for slaughterhouses.
ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATION (EC) No 1099/2009 ON THE PROTECTION OF
ANIMALS AT THE TIME OF KILLING IN THE MEMBER STATES
Regarding the general situation in EU on practices for slaughter without stunning, at the
time of this study (2013) and according to answers received, three main categories of
countries can be identified: countries where religious slaughter without prior stunning is
allowed without any explicit authorization , countries where religious slaughter without prior
stunning is allowed under certain conditions (as an authorization provided by competent
authority or a post-cut stun, for example), and countries where slaughter without pre
stunning is completely forbidden (Table 10).
In Belgium, Portugal, and Romania, there is no specific condition for slaughterhouses to
slaughter without stunning. Every slaughterhouse officially approved by the competent
authority according to the Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for slaughtering cattle is allowed to
perform slaughter without stunning on the condition they comply with the Regulation (EC)
No 1099/2009. Consequently, business operators are not obliged to inform competent
authorities that slaughter without stunning is performed.
Conversely, in 11 Member States, food business operators must apply to the competent
authority for official permission to slaughter without pre-stunning. In some counties,
derogations have never been accorded by the relevant competent authorities or competent
authorities answered that no animal was slaughtered without stunning in 2012 (Germany,
Estonia, Finland and Luxembourg).
In other countries, the competent authority can have additional requirements to Regulation
(EC) No 1099/2009 that concern the method to kill animals in accordance with religious rites.
41

Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 6 countries
selected by the study in 2012
(Source Borest Study, 'competent authority survey')
Adult bovine
Calves (<8 months)
4 000 000
3 500 000
3 000 000
2 500 000
2 000 000
1 500 000
1 000 000
500 000
0
Belgium
France
Italy
Spain
The
Netherlands
UK
Figure 6 : Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 6 countries selected by the study
Number and percentage of animals slaughtered with and without

stunning in the 6 selected Countries
(Source : BoRest study competent authorities survey Data: 2012)
4000000
76%
Without stunning
With stunning
99%
3000000
94%
90%
2000000
85%
24%
1000000
90%
1%
10%
10%
15%
6%
ES
NL
UK
0
BE
FR
IT
Figure 7 : Number and percentage of bovine animals slaughtered with and without
stunning in the 6 selected countries in 2012
42
For example in the United Kingdom, DEFRA has laid down several requirements in the
WATOK (Welfare of Animals at the Time Of Killing) so that animals must be restrained in an
upright position. In Latvia, Austria, Slovakia, Estonia, a post-cut stun applied immediately
after the beginning of the bleeding process is mandatory. In Finland, stunning and bleeding
at the same time (two operators) is mandatory according to the Animal Welfare Act
(247/1996) in the presence of an official veterinarian. But no animal was slaughtered
without stunning in 2012 in this country.
Finally, six Member States have forbidden the slaughter of cattle without stunning: Sweden,
Denmark, Malta3, Poland4, Slovenia and Lithuania. However, in this last country, a discussion
has been engaged to change actual legislation and allow slaughter without stunning.
So far, different additional rules may have been implemented in the Member States since
the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 regarding ritual slaughter:
Regarding the position of the animals during slaughter without stunning, upright
position is mandatory in two countries (United Kingdom and Estonia). Furthermore,
in the United Kingdom, all new slaughter restraint systems must be inspected and
approved on behalf of the Minister. In the other Member States, no specific
requirement has been specified in the survey by competent authorities.
A traceability system for incoming and outgoing orders of meat obtained from
animals religiously slaughtered has been implemented in 3 countries: Austria, France
and Ireland. In these countries, slaughterhouses must have a written customer
specification for meat from cattle slaughtered without pre stunning. They must
demonstrate that numbers slaughtered match with customer orders.
In France, the United Kingdom, Spain and The Netherlands, a minimum duration of
restraining in the pen before releasing the animals must be respected. This duration
is 45 seconds in the Netherlands and France, 30 seconds in the UK, while in Spain it
depends on the regions (from 30 seconds to 5 minutes).
Similarly, a minimum time between bleeding and processing is applied in France (5
minutes and 30 seconds) and in Spain (from 2 to 7 minutes depending on the
regions). In Portugal and Germany, animals must not be hanged before their bleeding
has ended.
Slaughter without stunning in Malta is legally possible but the Competent Authority had
reached an agreement in 2008 with the religious community to carry out stunning prior
to slaughter.
This ban has been considered unconstitutional in December 2014 but applied during the
study
43
France
4.880.000 animals slaughtered in 2012
With
stunning
76%
Without
stunning
24%
Upright
pen
10%
Rotating
pen
90%
The Netherlands
With
stunning
85%
825.000 animals slaughtered in 2012
Without
stunning
10%
Rotating
pen
80%
Belgium
Spain
With
stunning
90%
Without
stunning
15%
Upright
pen
20%
Upright
pen
34%
Rotating
pen
66%
With
stunning
90%
Without
stunning
10%
Upright
pen
70%
Rotating
pen
30%
Italy
UK
With
stunning
99%
Without
stunning
1%
Upright
pen
50%
Rotating
pen
50%
With
stunning
93%
Without
stunning
7%
Upright
pen
100%
Figure 8 : Number and percentage of bovine animals slaughtered with or without stunning and
restraining systems used to perform slaughter without stunning
44
Other additional requirements (e.g. sharpness of the knife, number of cuts, etc) regarding
the procedure exist in some Member States (for example, in France and the United
Kingdom). Regarding how, in each country (2013), it is ensured that slaughterhouses
employees dealing with live animals are competent regarding animal welfare, no answer was
given by Italy, Hungary, Latvia, Romany, Finland, Spain and the United Kingdom. Almost all
other Member States, mentioned training and licensing to reach this objective. Seven
Member States mentioned also the presence of an Animal Welfare Officer (EE, FR, DE, IE, PT,
SE and NL) in the slaughterhouses. Three countries (DK, FR, IT) mentioned the
implementation of standard operating procedures.
OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION IN SIX SELECTED MEMBER STATES IN 2012 (BE, FR, IT,
NL, SP, UK)
Of the total number of bovine animals slaughtered in the EU (i.e. 20 million adults and 5
million calves), 60% of the adults and more than 80% of the calves are slaughtered in the 6
Member States selected for the second part of this study (Figure 6).
Slaughter without stunning of bovine animals takes place nearly entirely (97%) within
these six Member States. It corresponds to 2,079,396 million bovine animals slaughtered
without stunning. In these Member States, 393 slaughterhouses are approved to slaughter
cattle without stunning according to the Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.
According to the data, France accounts for more than 60% of the animals slaughtered
without stunning in the selected countries. In France, nearly a quarter of the bovine animals
are slaughtered without stunning. The Netherlands with 15% of the cattle slaughtered
without stunning is the second Member States (Figure 7).
The situation regarding the percentage of animals slaughtered without stunning and the
percentage of use of both types of devices in the 6 selected countries is synthesized in
Figure 8.
45

Table 11 : Number of slaughtermen registered in the 6 selected Member States (Source: Borest
study competent authorities survey-Data: 2012)
Country
Total
Dhabiha
Shechita
Belgium
unknown
73
unknown
France
unknown
unknown
unknown
Italy
unknown
unknown
unknown
Spain
40
39
The Netherlands
unknown
unknown
unknown
United-Kingdom
unknown
unknown
unknown
* Italy: Additional partial data were obtained by phone call from 17 plants but not included in this
analysis
46
In most of the countries, the number of slaughtermen registered seems to be unknown

(Table 11). In France, for example, this information is not available at the veterinary services
level.
47
120
100
17%
80
55%
15%
60
35%
40
26%
20
17%
0
BE
FR
IT
ES
NL
UK
Figure 9 : Number and percentage of respondents to the survey compared to the total number of
slaughterhouses licensed to perform slaughter of bovine animals without stunning in the selected
countries
*
Table 12 : Profile of the respondents of the slaughterhouses survey (calves: less than 8 months old
- adult: more than 8 months old)
Country
Number of
respondents
to the survey
Number of
slaughterhouses
which mainly
slaughter adult
cattle
Number of
slaughterhouses
which mainly
slaughter calves
Number of
slaughterhouses
which mainly
slaughter other
species
Belgium
11
54
39
11
17
15
21
18
10
116
90
16
10
France
Italy
Spain
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
TOTAL
48
INVENTORY OF THE RESTRAINT DEVICES USED BY COMMERCIAL

SLAUGHTERHOUSES PERFORMING SLAUGHTER WITHOUT PREVIOUS
STUNNING IN SIX SELECTED MEMBER STATES
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS TO THE SURVEY
The questionnaires (Annex 2) were sent to slaughterhouses in March 2013, it took up to four
months for all the responses to be returned.
The mean response rate was 28% and ranged between 15 and 55% for the slaughterhouses
that perform slaughter without stunning (Figure 9). Data from 116 slaughterhouses
(approximately 30% of the estimated number of slaughterhouses performing slaughter of
bovine animals without stunning in the surveyed Member States) were finally collected.
Table 12 describes the profile of the respondents to the survey by country according to the
specialization of the slaughterhouse.
Responses were received from 90 slaughterhouses that mainly slaughter adult cattle (80% of
them are located in France, Spain and Italy) and from 16 slaughterhouses that mainly
slaughter calves i.e. bovine animals of less than 8 months old (France and Belgium mainly in
terms of number of animals). Ten respondents were multispecies slaughterhouses, which
mainly slaughter sheep and limited numbers of cattle.
NUMBER OF ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED IN THE SLAUGHTERHOUSES SURVEYED
The data collected in the 116 slaughterhouses through the survey covers more than 3 million
bovine animals slaughtered: 2 million adults and 1 million calves (Figure 10). From these
data, approximately one quarter of bovine animals (calves and adults) were slaughtered
without stunning (737,134 animals), most of them being slaughtered according to Dhabiha
(80% of the calves and 90% of the adult cattle slaughtered without stunning).
On average, 22% of the calves and 20% of the adults cattle are slaughtered according to
Dhabiha. Shechita is carried out for approximately 5% of the calves and 3% of the adults
slaughtered without stunning of this survey (Figure 10).
All the slaughterhouses except one responded that they perform Dhabiha slaughter.
Shechita is performed in 13 slaughterhouses for calves and in 17 slaughterhouses for adult
cattle.
49
Number of calves and adult cattle slaughtered by conventional, halal

and shechita practices in slaughterhouses surveyed (N=116)
(Source : Borest study slaughterhouses survey - Data 2012)
Conventional slaughter
Halal slaughter
1800000
Shechita slaughter
77%
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
73%
800000
600000
20%
400000
22%
200000
5%
3%
0
Calves
Adult cattle
Figure 10 : Number of calves and adult cattle slaughtered according to conventional slaughtering,
dhabiha and shechita rite in the 116 slaughterhouses surveyed
(Source: BoRest study slaughterhouses surveyData: 2012)
Type and number of restraining devices used in the

slaughterhouses surveyed
(Source : Borest study slaughterhouses survey - Data 2012)
Rotating pen
60
Upright pen
50
40
85%
30
20
10
0
73%
ES
IT
62%
44%
BE
71%
FR
NL
UK
Figure 11 : Type and number of restraining devices used in the 116 slaughterhouses of the sample
50
TYPE AND NUMBER OF RESTRAINT DEVICE USED IN THE SLAUGHTERHOUSES

Of 116 respondents to the survey, seven did not give any answer to the question asking for
the type of restraining system in use in the slaughterhouse mainly because they stun the
animals systematically before sticking. Consequently, the following data on the use of
restraining systems and practices is based on the answers of 109 slaughterhouses.
Overall, 70% of the slaughterhouses of the sample are using mainly a rotating restraint
device (Figure 11). In all the countries, a majority of the slaughterhouses are using this
device except in Belgium and in the United Kingdom where rotating devices are not
permitted.
Regarding France, Spain, Belgium and the United Kingdom, these data are consistent with
the estimates provided by the competent authorities. However, for the Netherlands, the
rotating pen is less often present in the slaughterhouses of the sample compared to the
estimates of competent authorities (62% instead of 80%). Conversely, regarding Italy, the
use of rotating pen in the Italian slaughterhouses of the sample is more frequent than
estimates by competent authorities (73% instead of 50%).
Of the 82 slaughterhouses that mainly slaughter adult cattle, rotating pens represent the
majority (70%) of the restraint devices used. Conversely, in slaughterhouses that specialized
in calf slaughter, the proportion is more balanced (Table 13).
In 48 slaughterhouses, the unique or most used restraint device is dedicated to adult cattle
and in five slaughterhouses to calves. Thirty one slaughterhouses have restraint devices that
can be adapted to slaughter either calves or adult cattle. It should also be noted that nine
slaughterhouses have two restraint devices and when looking at the second equipment, it is
always dedicated to one category of animals (two for adult and five for calves and two for
others).
51
Table 13 : Type and number of restraining system installed in the slaughterhouse according to the
main species slaughtered
Main species slaughtered
Number of rotating pens
Number of upright pens
Adult cattle
58
24
Calves
Sheep
TOTAL
74
35
52
MANUFACTURERS AND MODELS

Thirty two different manufacturers (list in Annex 3) have been identified through the
survey sent to the slaughterhouses while ten slaughterhouses have declared to have a selfmade pen. In most of the cases, it seems however that this self-made pen is a modified
commercial device.
Fifty percent of the devices in the sample are from three manufacturers (Facomia, Couedic
Mador and Vendramini) (n = 103) but it should be noted that this is the result of French
market share of these manufacturers (80% of the total market share). In fact, most of the
manufacturers are local and few are present in the different countries. In our sample,
Banss and Couedic Madore are present in France and Spain, Nawi in Belgium and The
Netherlands and Norman in Belgium and France. Furthermore, in countries other than
France, there does not appear to be manufacturers with dominant market share.
Manufacturers are specialized in one type of device. Nevertheless, according to
respondents, two manufacturers, Facomia and Couedic Mador produce both rotating and
upright restraint device. Regarding the first manufacturer it seems however that, in one
slaughterhouse, it is a rotating device used in upright position. In the case of Couedic
Mador, this is explained by the existence of a classical rotating restraint device and of a
restrainer i.e. conveyor with head restraint at one end that is used for calves exclusively in
upright position.
When looking at the type of device, according to the respondents, it appears that
approximately 80 different models are quoted. However this result should be interpreted in
view of:
Denominations are frequently inaccurate or unclear.

Most of the manufacturers are only present in one slaughterhouse of the sample.
36 slaughterhouses have asked for major modification of the device (12 for the chin
lift, 9 for adjustment for calves, and 15 for others).
10 slaughterhouses have self-made pen
The only model that appeared to be frequently quoted is the F7BV from Facomia which is
consistent with the market share of this manufacturer and its long history in the field.
53
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1991 1992 1994 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Figure 12 : Number of devices according to the year of investment

(Source: BoRest study slaughterhouses survey)
Number of animals slaughtered depending on

the restraining practice used
Percentage of abattoirs depending on the

restraining practice used
Mixed
positions
Upright
4%
Rotation
45
Upright
Mixed
positions
19%
27%
Rotation
45
Rotation
90
63%
5%
14%
Inverted
position
180
Rotation
90
64%
Inverted
position
180
Figure 13 : Description of the restraining practices used to slaughter adult cattle in terms of
number of slaughterhouses and in terms of number of animals slaughtered
54
YEAR OF INVESTMENT
In the sample, two peaks of investment can be emphasized: in the mid-nineties and during
the ten last years. But taking into account available data of the sample (n=81), 54 devices i.e.
67% are less than ten years old. 11 slaughterhouses (not included in the Figure 12)
answered that the device was built before 1990 but by looking at the model it appears that
most of them were produced after this date i.e. major change/renovation have been carried
out since the first investment.
RESTRAINT PRACTICES IN THE SLAUGHTERHOUSES
Using a rotating device may offer different possibilities of restraint practices depending on
the angle of rotation and including an upright position.
Restraining practices for adult bovine
Overall, 323 020 animals in 60 slaughterhouses of the sample (76% of the adult cattle and
60% of the slaughterhouses) are slaughtered without stunning after rotation while 77 600
animals in 22 slaughterhouses (18% of the adult cattle and 20% of the slaughterhouses) are
slaughtered without stunning in upright position. In the other 18 slaughterhouses which
slaughter limited number of adult bovine animals according to Dhabiha (7% of the adult
animals), stunning is reported by the respondents to be performed systematically before
exsanguinations (only Dhabiha) and/or information is lacking.
In more than 60% of the slaughterhouses surveyed and for 64% of the adult bovine
animals in the sample, the main restraining practice used for slaughter without stunning is
inverted position (180 rotation on the back). It may be noted that, for the Shechita, in our
sample, 75% of the adult bovine animals are slaughtered in inverted position compared to
58% for Dhabiha.
Only four slaughterhouses are performing the 90 rotation (lateral recumbency) for the
slaughter of adult cattle but this practice is quite relevant in terms of number of animals
slaughtered (15% of the animals of the sample), and quite similar (in terms of number of
animals) to the upright position (Figure 13). Finally, other restraint practices are a mix
between different positions, generally including inverted position. The use of different
position in the same slaughterhouse is due to the presence of several slaughtermen with
different practices and procedures.
55
Figure 14 : Number of slaughterhouses according to the restraining practices used

Figure 15 : Number of adult bovine animals slaughtered without stunning according to the
restraining practices used in the 6 selected countries
(Source: BoRest study slaughterhouses survey-Data: 2012)
56
When considering the countries of the sample, the situation in France and Spain is quite
similar. The inverted position is the most widely used practice in slaughterhouses. Lateral
recumbence is not frequently used but it is not negligible in terms of total numbers of
animals slaughtered. Conversely, Belgium and the United Kingdom were similar by the
exclusive practice of upright restraint for slaughter without stunning. In Italy and The
Netherlands, the situation is more balanced but this is also due, in the case of The
Netherlands, to the limited number of slaughterhouses in the sample (Figures 14 and 15).
Restraint practices for calves
Thirty slaughterhouses (65%) restrain calves in the inverted position, representing 57% of
the animals. Restraint in lateral recumbence is used in one slaughterhouse, which is one of
the largest plants in the survey. Similarly, it has to be noticed that mix practice (70% of the
calves are bleeding in inverted position and 30% in upright position) is performed in one
large plant. Overall, it is estimated that 233 138 calves (83% of the sample) were
slaughtered without stunning using rotating restraint practice.
Consequently, even if upright restraint is quite more frequent in terms of number of
slaughterhouses (29%) compared to adult, it only represents 17% of the animals of the
total sample (Figure 16).
Differences between countries are not relevant because Belgium and France are the main
contributors to the sample for calves with a reduced number of slaughterhouses in Belgium
compared to France.
Percentage of abattoirs depending on the

restraining practice used
Upright
mixed
positions
31%
Rotation
90
Percentage of animal slaughtered without

stunning depending on the restraining
practice used
Upright
Rotation
90
2%
12%
mixed
position
16%
15%
2%
57%
65%
Inverted
position
180
Inverted
position
180
Figure 16 : Percentage of slaughterhouses and calves slaughtered without stunning according to

the restraining practices
57
Table 14 : Number of slaughterhouses and adult cattle slaughtered without stunning according to
the device (manufacturer) and the restraining practice
Restraining
device
Number of devices
Number of
adult cattle
slaughtered
Facomia
21
83,073
BANSS
71,011
Couedic Mador
28,801
Vendramini
24,906
SUCMANU
14,618
MECNICAS GARROTXA
9,638
6,939
BEMO
5,377
Emme
4,194
Bulgarelli Engineering & Trade

SRL
3,250
SIBEMIA
2,347
ROVANI
960
Nuova Innocenti e Cipollini
30
Manufacturer
Self made
Rotating pen
Upright pen
Restraining
practice
180
STORK
90/180
1,000
Couedic Mador
90
33,446
BAERT
22,353
BSM IA
1,575
Facomia
45
5,875
Norman
Upright
10,000
TAESA
14,110
Self made
10,366
AVI SILVA
10,000
Baeten
8,500
3,014
Facomia
435
VITELLI / VITELLONI MASCHI E

FEMMINE
229
Bob Snarr
167
BERMEJO
Upright
58
RESTRAINING PRACTICES RELATED TO THE DEVICE USED

As stated above, there are a wide variety of types of devices used by slaughterhouses in the
sample. A large part of the market is shared by three manufacturers, while rest is made up of
numerous small local manufacturers (upright or rotating).
When looking at the relationship between practices and manufacturers (Tables 14 and 15),
it should be noted that:
For both categories of bovine animals, there is no direct link between the frequency of
device in slaughterhouses and the number of animals slaughtered with this device.
This results from the size heterogeneity of slaughterhouses
For both categories, a small number of manufacturers/device are used for a large part
of the animals slaughtered without stunning in the inverted position while there is a
more balanced situation in the upright position
For adults, the 90 position is not linked to a particular device and is performed with 4
different ones
For calves, when the upright position is used, the most frequent situation is the use of
conveyors with head restraint at the end using a Couedic Mador device (4
slaughterhouses and 22,134 calves).
59

Table 15 : Number of slaughterhouses and calves slaughtered without stunning according to the
device (manufacturer) and the restraining practice
Restraint
device
Rotating pen
Upright pen
Restraining
Practice
180
Nawi
Number of
devices
2
Number of animals
slaughtered
80,050
180
Facomia
16
54,942
180
Vendramini
20,554
180
Couedic Mador
3,638
UR/180 (30/70)
Couedic Mador
45,000
180
Norman
1,323
180
BEMO
781
180
BANSS
153
180
ROVANI
180
Self made
90
Nawi
43,094
UR
Facomia
4,613
UR
Couedic Mador
22,134
UR
BSM IA
6,260
UR
AVI SILVA
4,000
UR
Facomia
2,598
UR
J&W Services
1,065
UR
Baeten
450
UR
COMAZZI
357
UR
Self made
281
UR
Self made per

vitelli/vitelloni
39
Manufacturer
60
BoRest final report April 2015
CONCLUSION
Regarding the general situation in the European Union in 2012
Of 25 million bovine animals slaughtered in the EU, more than 2 million are annually
slaughtered without stunning, corresponding to 8% of the animal slaughtered. Of 24
Member States that answered the questionnaires, 13 have performed slaughter without
stunning in 2012. Meanwhile, this practice was legally banned (or there is an agreement to
not perform it) in five Member States at the time of the study.
There is significant variation in the numbers of animals slaughtered without stunning in the
different Member States. In the EU: France, The Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom
(which account for approximately 45% of the total cattle slaughtered in the EU) account for
84% of all cattle slaughtered without stunning, while Belgium, Italy and Ireland (which
account for approximately 20% ) only account for 8%.
In the EU, almost 80% of the animals slaughtered without stunning are slaughtered in a
rotating pen and 20% in an upright pen. The slaughter of cattle in the inverted position is
currently not permitted in 2 countries (the United Kingdom and Estonia). The use of rotating
device is the most common practice in the other major countries (France, The Netherland
and Spain).
Regarding the current situation in the six selected countries in 2012
Based on data collected from both competent authorities and slaughterhouses, rotating
devices are the most widely used system, approximately 70% of the slaughterhouses5.
Inverted position is the most frequent restraint practice used in more than half of the
slaughterhouses. Upright restraint is used in 20-30% of the slaughterhouses while other
practices are mainly a mix between different practices or lateral recumbence.
The percentage of animals killed without stunning while restrained in inverted position is of
60% (64% of the adults and 57% of the calves), in upright position of 20% of the adults and
12% of the calves, in lateral recumbence of 15% for both with the remaining being a mix of
different practices.
There is a large variety of manufacturers/models used for the restraint of cattle for slaughter
without stunning. Manufacturers are generally specialized in one type of device.
All these estimations are including the United Kingdom where rotating devices are not
permitted
61
62
Rotating restraint devices in the majority of slaughterhouses, and in particular in large scale
slaughterhouses, originate from a few manufacturers. The remaining slaughterhouses source
the rotating devices from many different, mainly local, manufacturers. Altogether, the
Facomia like design is the most frequent and only a few devices seem to be based on
different principles.
Regarding the upright restraint manufacturers/devices, almost all of the other
slaughterhouses are using different manufacturers/devices. In The United Kingdom, due to
the national requirements, upright devices are based on the ASPCA principles. In other
countries, a larger diversity was observed.
Overall, most of the investments were recent ones with 67% of the devices less than 10
years old. This implies that most of the device are supposed to be used for the next decades.
63
64
5. ASSESSMENT OF WELFARE OF BOVINE ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED

WITHOUT
STUNNING
USING
DIFFERENT
RESTRAINT
DEVICES/PRACTICES
Task leaders: L. Mirabito (Idele), A. Dalmau (IRTA) and C. Terlouw (INRA)
INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this second step of the project was to analyze the animal welfare
advantages and disadvantages of the different types of restraining systems commercially
used in European slaughterhouses and to provide recommendations on good practice.
The results of the survey in slaughterhouses that are licensed to perform slaughter without
stunning of cattle were used to define sampling principles and to select slaughterhouses in
which observations would be carried out to assess the impact of the different restraining
systems and operating procedure on animal welfare.
In this objective, a common methodology was elaborated and tested in slaughterhouses
during a three days meeting, which was held in Girona in April 2013.
It was first planned that at least four slaughterhouses would be visited in five selected
European countries (Spain, France, Italy, The Netherlands and The United Kingdom), one in
Belgium and Ireland and a third country (Israel). The expected sample of slaughterhouses
was defined on the basis of the results of the survey about practices and restraining systems
used in slaughterhouses considering both categories of animals (calves and adults)
separately. However, due to willingness of the slaughterhouses to participate to the study,
eventually a total of twenty two different groups of animals (category of animals combined
with restraining method) were assessed in eighteen locations. A total of 1113 bovine animals
were observed.
Data collection took place from July to December 2013 by each partner in its country and
monthly phone meetings were organized to finalize the analysis and the recommendations
from January to April 2014.
The main results and conclusions are reported in this document.
65

Table 16: Characteristics of the slaughterhouses
(Source: BoRest study assessment of welfare)
Slaughterhouses
Number of cattle
slaughtered per
year ( dhabiha or
shechita)
Total number
of animals
studied
Animal
position
during the cut
Device
manufacturer
Head
restraint
SH1
9,700
60
180
180
Mecanicas
Garrotxa SA
Couedic
Madore
Home made
Yes
180
BANSS
Dhabiha
No
180
BANSS
20-22
Dhabiha
No
90
Facomia
63
30-34
Dhabiha
No
150
Norman
2,747
3,919
15
36
48
48
Dhabiha
Shechita
No
180
Sceria
SH9
3,425
60
20-25
Dhabiha
No
180
SH10
SH11
SH12
60
60
24
10
10
12
Dhabiha
Dhabiha
Shechita
No
No
No
90
0
180
SH13
400
470
960 (adult cattle
and calves)
15,000
Bulgarelli
Engineering
& Trade srl
Mancini IMAS
Home made
Rovana
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
SH2
33,500
60
30
Dhabiha
Yes
180
SH3
6,000
20
18
Dhabiha
No
SH4
11,000
60
22
Dhabiha
SH5
38,000
60
30-40
SH6
10,488
57
SH7
SH8
61
21
Dhabiha
No
180
NAWI
SH14
14,500
56
30
Shechita
No
SH15
7,800
28
20
Dhabiha
No
JC Engineering
64
4
5
58
CALVES (n = 333)
Shechita
30
Shechita
Dhabiha
44
Shechita
Couedic
Madore
No
180
0
0
180
Vendramini
36
12
Shechita
No
180
Rovana
16
82
68
20
60
80
Shechita
Dhabiha
Dhabiha
No
Yes
No
180
0
180
Home made
SH16
45,000
SH8
20,301
SH12
960 (adult cattle

and calves)
1,250
150,000
87,000
SH17
SH18
Line
speed
Slaughter
method
Post-cut
stunning
ADULT CATTLE (n = 780)

20
Dhabiha
No
No
NAWI
66
Rope
Rope
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Metal
chinlift
Rope
Metal
chinlift
No chinlift
MATERIAL AND METHOD

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE OF GROUPS OF ANIMALS
Slaughter plants were first sampled according to the following principles:
Categories of animals (calves and adult cattle)
Position of the animal at the time of bleeding (Upright, inverted and lateral
recumbence)
For the Rotating device:
Main manufacturers in term of number of slaughterhouses and animals

slaughtered without stunning in inverted position for both categories of animals
(i.e. Facomia Couedic Mador, Vendramini/Sceria, Nawi, Banss)
Random sampling of at least one slaughterhouse restraining bovine animals in
lateral recumbency
Sampling of slaughterhouses to provide a picture of national diversity
Additional slaughter plants were added to the sample when it was known that
special devices/practices were carried out.
For the upright device:
Random sampling of at least an slaughterhouse using conveyor for calves with

head restraint at the end
Sampling of slaughterhouses to provide a picture of national diversity included
as far as possible special design
The British, Dutch and Israeli partners encountered difficulties getting access to
slaughterhouses (due to management refusals). Furthermore, the delayed answers from
Ireland to the first survey prevented us from contacting the Irish slaughterhouses.
Consequently, the final number of slaughterhouses visited was lower than expected in these
countries. To compensate, five groups of animals in total were observed in France, Italy and
Spain. Some difficulties were also encountered regarding the availability of slaughterhouses
with restraining systems other than rotating device. For example, in France, upright position
using a rotating device and upright position using a conveyor of calves were no longer used
in the two initially sampled (from survey 2) slaughterhouses of calves. Eventually, this study
was carried out in eighteen locations representing 22 different groups of bovine animals
(combinations of category of animals and restraining practices - Table 16). Thirteen
slaughterhouses performed slaughter without pre stunning of adult bovine animals, three
performed slaughter without pre stunning of calves and the last two slaughtered both
categories of animals. In two slaughter plants, we observed bovine animals slaughtered in
inverted and upright position in the same device.
67
68
The slaughterhouses were located according to the following distribution: five in Spain, four
in France including one with two separate lines for adults and calves and one slaughtering
calves in inverted and upright position, four in Italy including one slaughtering both adults
and calves in the same device after adjustment, two in the Netherlands including one
slaughtering calves in inverted and upright position, two in the UK and one in Belgium.
Slaughterhouses were very variable in terms of numbers of animals slaughtered without pre
stunning: from limited numbers (< 5000 animals/year) to very large throughputs (> 80 000
animals/year). Average line speeds varied between slaughterhouses but the line speed
observed during the observation days were similar to the average speed provided by the
slaughterhouses.
Except in the United Kingdom, the majority of bovine animals slaughtered without pre
stunning are killed in the inverted position. Attempts were made to visit slaughterhouses
that slaughter bovine animals in the upright position in the other countries. In the
Netherlands, the upright position for calves was also associated with performance of a postcut stun (Dhabiha). In Italy, the upright position for adult bovine animals also involved the
use of rope for head restraint (SH11). In France, one upright-slaughtering slaughterhouse
was identified but refused to participate in the study and another one, specialised in calves,
accepted but changed its operating procedure between the first survey and the visit. Then
only a small number of animals slaughtered in the upright positions were observed here,
after the observers requested this.
Regarding the rotating restraint device, the sampling was based firstly on the distribution of
restraint devices in the different countries. The main manufacturers are therefore
represented in the sample: Facomia, Couedic Mador, Vendramini/Seria, Banss, Nawi and
Norman. In the other slaughterhouses, restraining devices were either built by a local
manufacturer or were self-made by the slaughterhouses. In two slaughterhouses, adult
bovine animals were slaughtered in the lateral position.
69
70
At last, we also made attempts to identify some special restraint devices used in
slaughterhouses that were thought to have a particular effect on animal welfare. The use of
a mobile head restraint device for calves at the end of the conveyor was one of these
systems but the slaughterhouse selected did no longer use it. One slaughterhouse was
selected because of the use of a rotating device where the restraining device was not
rotating around its own axis but followed a semi-circular path. One slaughterhouse used a
concrete device with a window at the front end and the use of rope for the restraint of the
head. Another slaughterhouse used a device consisting of two separate parts. In this case,
when the first bovine animal is inverted and cut, the slaughterman introduces the second
animal into the other part. Then after the bleeding and the release of the first animal, the
restraining device turns around, the second animal is cut in inverted position and a third
animal enters the part previously occupied by the first animal.
The number of animals observed per plant was set at an objective of 60 animals slaughtered.
A total of 1113 bovine animals were finally observed during slaughter plant visits (780 adults
more than 8 months and 333 calves less than 8 months).
71
Restraint duration
Duration of
box introduction
Rotation
duration
Inverted
position
Restraining procedures
UPRIGHT
IN ROTATION INVERTED
ANIMAL POSITION
Start
intervention
Nose
in box
Back
Head out
pusher
of box
Rotation 1
Start
Rotation 1
End
Cut
Rotation 2 Rotation 2 Release

Start
End
Start
Stages of
slaughter procedure
Figure 17 : Standard pattern of the used of rotating device

Duration of
box introduction
Restraint duration
Restraining procedures
UPRIGHT
ANIMAL POSITION
Belly Back
Start
Nose Head
plate pusher
intervention in box out of
box
*No data on neck release.
Neck
restraint
Head
restraint
Cut
Head
release*
Body
release*
Stages of
slaughter procedure
Figure 18 : Standard pattern of the used of upright device

72
MEASURES
PROCEDURES DEVELOPMENT
The first draft of the protocol was produced by the task leaders (C. Terlouw, INRA and A.
Dalmau, IRTA) and sent to all partners by the end of March 2013.
Subsequently, a three days meeting was held in Girona (hosted by IRTA) with all project
partners. During the meeting, the observation protocol was discussed and improved
accordingly. Several local slaughterhouses were visited to test and refine the observation
protocol. The output of the standardization meeting was a description of a list of variables
that was discussed and finalized by mail in April 2013. Some additional descriptions were
then added by V. Marzin and B. Ducreux (Institut de lElevage) after having tested some of
the variables in slaughterhouses for another French project.
OVERVIEW OF THE FUNCTIONING OF THE DEVICE
The general patterns of the use of rotating and upright devices are described at Figures 17
and 18. The observations started when the animals were in the corridor before the entrance
of the device. Then the animals start entering the device (nose in box), go through and have
their head out of the device on the other side (head out of box). At this moment, the
restraining procedure is started by activating the back pusher, the lateral pusher (or the belly
plate in upright devices) and finally the head restrainer and the chin lift. Then the rotation
takes place and, at the end of the rotation, the throat of the animal is cut. After the cut, the
animals may stay in inverted position until the release or they can be rotated back again.
OBSERVATIONS
During the visits, we gathered information on:
The layout of the area including the corridor, restraining device and releasing area
The organization of the work (operators, slaughtermen) and the equipment used
(Annex 4)
The functioning of the device
73

Table 17 : Definition of the variables analysed
Period
Duration of entrance
from nose in device at the back end to head out of device at
the front end
Duration of restraint
from back pusher to start cut
Duration of rotation
from start rotation to rotation completed
Duration of inverted position
from rotation completed to start cut
Human-animal interactions
Negative contact (entrance)
Tail twist + Door on back + Give a kick
Prod-use (entrance)
Electric prod used
Animal behaviour
Stress-related behaviour (entrance)
Walk backwards + Walk forwards + Is compressed + Compresses
+ Is mounted + Mounts + Other
Slips and falls (entrance)
Slips + Falls
Vocalisations
(entrance
and vocal sound intentionally expressed by the animal
restraint)
Cut and bleeding
Quality of head restraint
Judgment
Number of cuts
number of movements (total of backwards and forwards) of the
blade while in contact with the neck tissue
Both carotids
Both carotids severed
Impeded flow
Impeded flow after the cut due to blood clot or other restriction
Signs of consciousness/unconsciousness
spontaneous eyes movements
eyelids closing without previous pressure on the cornea
eyes convulsing
eye white visible, eyes turning inwards
loss of corneal reflex
absence of eye closure after a LIGHT touch on the canthus of the

eye (brush fixed on a stick)
struggles (before or after cut)
movements involving the whole body, legs and possible head

with the intention to escape from the situation
animal sitting or lying down. Apparent loss of posture: animals
seems not to carry its weight but is carried by the restraining
system.
loss of posture
Attempt to inspire
successful or unsuccessful inspiration movement discontinued

with guttural sound
74
Moreover, we observed for each animal:
Behavioral indicators of stress from the beginning of human intervention until its
death (falls and slips, vocalizations and other behaviors).
Human-animal interactions (use of electric prods and other negative contacts)
The cut and indicators of bleeding efficiency
The signs of consciousness
The details are given in Annex 5, 6 and 7.

Each slaughterhouse was visited for one or several days (according to the line speed) and a
sample of animals were observed according to the methodology, which was commonly
defined by the consortium.
Observations were carried out on animal behavior from the corridor to a minimum duration
of 45 seconds after the cut. However due to technical limitations, it was not possible to
observe all the variables in every slaughterhouses.
All observations were continuously voice recorded except the corneal reflex which was
tested every 15 seconds after the cut.
For the analyses, we calculated the duration of the different period and, for a given period,
the number of occurrence per animal and/or the frequency of animals that expressed or
were subject of the behavior/events. The definitions of the variables are given in Table 17.
The variables were coded in MS Excel sheet. Descriptive statistics were calculated with Excel
StatExact.
PLANNING
Data collection started in July and ended in December 2013.
Data analysis was carried out from January to April 2014.
75

Table 18 : Duration (s) of entry of the adult bovine into the restraint device (from nose in box to
head out of box) (Source: BoRest study assessment of welfare)
SH11
SH14
SH15
SH6
SH10
SH1
SH2
SH3
SH4
SH5
SH7
SH8
SH9
SH12
DURATION
Number of animals
Range
UPRIGHT
60
1 25
56
0 20
28
0 - 139
LATERAL
57
1 94
60
0 24
INVERTED
60
0 58
60
3 48
20
2 23
60
2 52
60
3 72
63
0 38
51
1 - 130
60
0 53
24
0 50
Mean (SD)
7.2 (5.3)
2.0 (4.1)
15.4 (26.2)
12.3 (16.4)
7.8 (5.5)
8.5 (9.0)
13.6 (9.6)
13.0 (6.5)
12.4 (8.8)
14.6 (9.8)
6.9 (7.1)
10.1 (18.0)
19.3 (14.2)
9.6 (10.4)
Table 19 : Human-animal interactions (HAI) during entry of adult bovine into the restraining device
(Range and Mean: occurrence per animal- Freq: %of animals)
Negative contact
Prod-use
Range
Mean (SD)
Freq
Range
Mean (SD)
Freq
SH14
SH15
01
00
0.2 (0.3)
0 (0)
SH6
01
0.04 (0.2)
UPRIGHT
17.9%
0.0%
LATERAL
3.5%
SH1
01
0.02 (0.1)
INVERTED
1.7%
04
0.4 (0.7)
36.7%
SH2
02
0.1 (0.4)
8.3%
0 13
1.4 (2.2)
55.0%
SH3
02
0.6 (0.8)
35.0%
02
0.1 (0.5)
5.0%
SH4
02
0.2 (0.5)
21.7%
0 17
0.5 (2.5)
8.3%
SH5
01
0.03 (0.2)
3.3%
0 10
3.0 (2.3)
90.0%
SH7
01
0.1 (0.3)
9.5%
06
0.7 (1.4)
31.7%
SH8
01
0.2 (0.4)
17.6%
2.8 (2.9)
58.8%
08
03
1.1 (1.8)
0.3 (0.8)
50.0%
17.9%
0 11
0.9 (2.3)
19.3%
0 10
76
RESULTS
ENTRY OF THE BOVINE ANIMALS INTO THE RESTRAINT DEVICE (FROM
NOSE IN DEVICE TO HEAD OUT OF DEVICE BEFORE START OF THE
RESTRAINING PROCEDURE)
CASE OF ADULT BOVINE
Duration of entry into the restraint device (Table 18)
In most of the slaughterhouses, the time it took the adult bovine animals to enter into the
device was between 5s and 15s. In some cases, this time could increase dramatically up to 2
minutes, the maximum time registered.
The layout of the area may explain some delays. For example, lighting environment was
judged as bad by observers in SH2, SH3 and SH5. But, where the longest average duration
was recorded (SH9), this result could be explained by the design of the device and the added
factor that the animal was introduced in the second part of the device while the other one in
the first part was being bleeding.
Human-animal interactions, in the corridor especially, also had an effect on duration of
entry. For example, in SH14, the animals ran into the box in 2s because of a highly
frequent use of the electric prod in the badly designed end of corridor.
Human-animal interactions into the restraint device (Table 19)
For 40% of the animals, there were no human-animal interactions during the entry into the
restraint device. When human-animal interactions were observed, this was exclusively the
use of electric prods (used in all slaughterhouses) for 137 animals over 293 (47%).
The use of electric prod was low in some slaughterhouses i.e. in SH3 and SH4 (less than 10%
of the animals) while, in others, more than 50% of the animals were stimulated with an
average number of prods higher than one per animal (SH8, SH2, SH5, SH14). The frequent
use of the electric prod was linked to the design of the entry of the device (e.g. SH14) or to
the behaviour of some operators who tended to use it repetitively on some animals with a
counter-productive effect. (e.g. SH8).
77

Table 20 : Animal behaviour in the restraint device- Adult bovine
Stress-related behavior
Range
Mean (SD)
Freq
Fall or slip
Range
Mean (SD)
Vocalisation
Freq
Range
Mean (SD)
Freq
UPRIGHT
SH11
01
0.5 (0.5)
50.0%
SH14
05
0.5 (1.1)
7.1%
01
0.04 (0.2)
3.6%
06
0.3 (1.2)
10.7%
SH15
0-2
0.2 (0.5)
17.9%
00
0 (0)
0.0%
00
0 (0)
0.0%
LATERAL
SH6
0 10
1.6 (2.3)
45.6%
00
0 (0)
0.0%
0 12
0.9 (2.1)
29.8%
SH10
01
0.6 (0.5)
60.0%
INVERTED
SH1
01
0.2 (0.4)
15.0%
02
0.07 (0.3)
5.0%
01
0.02 (0.1)
1.7%
SH2
04
0.3 (0.7)
18.3%
09
0.6 (1.4)
31.7%
0-
0.2 (0.4)
16.7%
SH3
01
0.1 (0.3)
10.0%
02
0.3 (0.6)
25.0%
06
0.3 (1.3)
5.0%
SH4
02
0.3 (0.5)
30.0%
01
0.02 (0.1)
1.7%
02
0.1 (0.4)
8.3%
SH5
02
0.3 (0.5)
26.7%
02
0.1 (0.4)
10.0%
06
0.6 (1.2)
30.0%
SH7
02
0.1 (0.5)
9.5%
01
0.1 (0.3)
9.5%
02
0.1 (0.4)
9.5%
SH8
01
0.04 (0.2)
3.9%
01
0.04 (0.2)
3.9%
0 10
0.7 (1.8)
19.6%
SH9
04
1.7 (1.3)
78.3%
SH12
01
0.5 (0.5)
50.0%
SH13
02
0.4 (0.6)
29.5%
03
0.05 (0.4)
1.6%
01
0.05 (0.2)
4.9%
78
Negative contacts (i.e. tail twist, door on back, give a kick or use the prod as a stick) other
than the use of an electric prod were rarely observed (55 bovine animals and 1 interaction
per animal almost exclusively when it happened) but in all slaughterhouses. There did not
appear to be any link between the use of electric prod and the other negative behaviour of
slaughtermen as, in some slaughterhouses, less relative use of the electric prod was
associated with high relative other negative contacts (SH3, SH4) and the contrary (SH15,
SH5) while, in others, the relative use was the same (SH6, SH1, SH8, SH14).
Animal behavior in the restraint device (Table 20)

Stress-related behaviours of the animals (Walk backwards + Walk forwards +kick + struggle)
were observed in all slaughterhouses. Overall, 117 out of 576 animals expressed these
behaviours. Except in SH6 where 44% of the animals expressed these behaviours, with an
average of 1.6 behaviour/animal and a large variability, in the other slaughterhouses, the
frequency varied between 4% (SH8) and 30% (SH4).
These behaviours did not appear to be directly linked to the human interactions and, in
particular, the frequency of prod-use. In fact, these behaviours could depend on the
emotional status of the animals, the operators strategy and the environment that the
animals encountered when seeing the outside of the device. This may explain that, for
example in SH6, in spite of a handling that is supposed to be not too stressful, the animals
expressed very frequently these behaviours.
Falls or slips were observed in a limited number of cases: 47 animals out of 576 animals (8%),
including 19 animals out of 60 in SH2 (31.7%) and 5 out 20 in SH3 (25%). In these
slaughterhouses however, observers noticed that the junction of the floor between corridor
and the restraining device needed to be improved. We did not observe any clear relationship
between the frequency of the use of the prod in the restraint device and the frequency of
falls and slips.
In contrast, except for SH6 (and SH9 to 12 where the use of prod was not recorded), a
positive relation was apparent between the frequency of prod-use and the frequency of
vocalisations, which were expressed by 0 to 30% of the animals depending on the
slaughterhouse.
79

Table 21 : Duration (s) of entry of the calves into the restraint device
Number of
animals
58
36
73
SH8
SH10
SH16
Duration
Range
Mean (SD)
5 16
1 12
0 30
8.7 (2.3)
2.8 (3.1)
5.7 (5.6)
Table 22 : Behaviour of the calves during the entry into the restraint device
SH8
SH10
SH16
SH17
SH18
Stress-related behaviour
Number of Nb % animals
animals
58
0
0
73
98
68
0
24
36
0
24.5%
52.9%
Vocalisation
Nb % animals
0
18
0
50%
0
19
-
0
19.4%
-
80
ENTRY OF CALVES IN THE RESTRAINT DEVICE
The duration of entry of calves into the restraining device was estimated in three
slaughterhouses (SH16, SH8, SH12) because it was impossible to distinguish between
corridors and device in SH18 and SH17 (Table 21). The mean duration range was between
2.8s (SH12) and 8.6s (SH8) with more than 90% of the calves entering the box in less than
15s. This duration appeared to be lower than those observed for adults. As for the adult
bovine animals, the shortest duration observed in SH12 could be explained partially by
frequent negative human-calves interactions in the corridor just before the restraining
device.
Human-calves interactions were observed in the device on a sub sample of animals in SH16
and SH17. Respectively, 66 and 71% of the calves were handled with an average number
of interactions per animal of 1.1 and 1.4. No negative contact (i.e. tail twist, door on back,
give a kick or use the prod as a stick) was observed, nor the use of electric prod.
No falls and slips were observed. 24.5% of calves expressed behavioural indicators of stress
in SH17 and 0% in SH16 and SH8. Over 19.4% of the calves in SH17 and 50% in SH12
(probably in relation with human-calves interactions in the corridor) vocalized, none
vocalized in SH16 and SH8 (Table 22).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the duration of the entry of the bovine animals into the restraint device could
be very variable depending on the slaughterhouses. Almost half of the animals were handled
without any interaction and the use of electric-prod was the most frequent negative
interaction observed for the others. The lay-out of the end of the corridor / entry to the
device and the human-animals interaction in this part are the main factors of variation
Human-animals interactions in the device, particularly the prod-use, could be inefficient and
result in high frequency of vocalizing animals. Slips and falls were mainly related to the floor
quality.
The duration of the entry of the calves in the restraining device appeared to be shorter and
less stressful than those observed for adult bovine. However, it was again observed that the
shorter duration observed was associated with intensive negative interaction in the corridor
and this could also be linked with a high percentage of calves that vocalized.
81
82
It is not possible to set precise objective for the duration of entry into the device. The animal
should be handle with care and remain as quiet as possible. Recommendation for the lay-out
of this area are provided by different guidelines. It is however frequent that restraining
devices were introduced later. This can explain some poor design due to existing constraints.
Where relevant, progress in this point should be prioritized. Knowledge and skill of the
handlers should also be improved as, in some cases, their behaviour appeared to have a
counter-productive effect. Entry of the animals in restraint device is usually a critical point
and therefore should be regularly monitored by the managers of the slaughterhouses.
83
Table 23 : Restraint durations (s) of adult bovines

Restraint duration
Rotation duration
Inverted duration
From start restraint to start cut
From start to end of
From end rotation to
the rotation inside
start cut inside
Restraint duration
Restraint duration
Range
Mean (SD)
Range
Mean (SD)
Nb
Range
Mean (SD)
UPRIGHT
SH11
60
10 335
90.1 (60.5)
SH14
56
15 63
25.7 (9.6)
SH15
28
12 - 46
16.9 (7.2)
LATERAL
SH6
57
6 55
23.0 (8.9)
16
3.8 (0.9)
0 52
3.18 (7.3)
SH10
60
23 208
83.5 (27.7)
2 40
10.1 (5.2)
0 12
3.95 (3.2)
INVERTED
SH1
60
29 99
52.2 (16.1)
0 23
15.6 (3.0)
0 40
6.5 (7.5)
SH2
60
12 37
18.4 (5.7)
6 11
8.5 (1.6)
0 10
1.4 (3.5)
SH3
20
53 112
68.2 (13.5)
23 35
29.0 (2.9)
6 57
18.7 (10.8)
SH4
60
28 84
48.3 (13.3)
2 44
12.1 (4.8)
0 41
7.6 (7.9)
SH5
60
21 24
22.5 (2.1)
9 26
14.1 (2.9)
0 57
3.3 (8.2)
SH7
63
7 27
16.0 (4.1)
49
6.3 (1.3)
05
0.75 (1.0)
SH8
42
14 58
23.1
5 10
7.5
0 21
3.9
SH9
60
21 258
113.7 (44.8)
1 44
13.1 (8.02)
1 55
10.8 (7.3)
SH12
24
1 14
10.9 (2.9)
1 33
7.6 (9.4)
84
RESTRAINT PROCEDURE
ADULT BOVINE ANIMALS
Restraint duration (Table 23)
We observed a wide range of average restraint duration (start of restraint to start of cut),
from 16s to 114s.
For the duration measured, we can distinguish between slaughterhouses where the mean
durations were lower than 30s with maximum values lower than 65s (SH6, SH7, SH8, SH2,
SH5, SH14, SH15) and slaughterhouses where the mean durations were higher than 60s with
minimum values higher than 20s (SH9, SH10, SH11, SH3).
The position of the animals at the cut could not be linked to these mean durations. Both
groups (short duration and long duration) included animals in the inverted position (SH6,
SH7, SH8, SH2, SH5 and SH9, SH3 respectively), in the lateral position (SH6 and SH10
respectively) and in the upright position (SH14, SH15 and SH11 respectively).
On the contrary, all these results could be explained by the specifications of the device or
the management of the animals. For example, with the double part rotating device observed
(SH9), the restraint (not a full head and body restraint) of a given animal started while the
previous one was already being bled and lasted until it was released out of the device. In
SH3, the device used was not a Facomia like and did not turn around its own axis but
following a semicircular path at a very low speed. In SH10 and SH11, ropes were used for the
head restraint and the preparation of the animals took a longer time than with automatic
head restraint.
At last, in SH1 and SH4, intermediate restraint durations were recorded. For SH4, this could
be explained in part by difficulties encountered by the operators during the handling of the
animals (animals offering resistance to the back pusher).
Duration of rotation (Table 23)
The duration of rotation (included in restraint duration) varied between 6s and 15s when the
animals were inverted except in one case (SH3) where it took 29s in average to rotate the
animals. Some extreme values (more than 40s) were observed in some slaughterhouses,
generally linked to problems of head positioning.
85

Table 24 : Vocalisation of adult bovine during restraint
Vocalisation during restraint

Range
Mean (SD)
Freq
UPRIGHT
SH11
01
0.05 (0.2)
5.0%
SH14
00
0.00 (0.00)
0.0%
SH15
0-0
0.00 (0.00)
0.0%
LATERAL
SH6
0 11
0.9 (2.1)
30.4%
SH10
01
0.07 (0.25)
6.7%
INVERTED
SH1
02
0.2 (0.5)
11.7%
SH2
01
0.05 (0.2)
5.0%
SH3
02
0.1 (0.45)
5.0%
SH4
05
0.1 (0.7)
3.3%
SH5
01
0.1 (0.3)
13.3%
SH7
03
0.2 (0.6)
15.9%
SH8
06
0.6 (-)
30.9%
SH9
02
0.1 (0.4)
10.0%
SH12
01
0.04 (0.20)
4.2%
SH13
05
0.4 (1.1)
13.1%
86
Where the animals were inverted, the lowest duration observed in SH7 could be explained
by the final position of the animal which was 150 rather than 180. The longest duration
recorded in SH3 was directly linked with the specific design of the restraint device (semicircular path) and the low speed of rotation.
Where the animals were restrained in lateral position (90), the two slaughterhouses were
quite different with mean duration of 3.8s in SH6 and 10.1s in SH10.
Duration of inverted or lateral position (Table 23)
Where bovine animals were rotated, the mean duration between the end of the rotation
and the start of the cut (included in the restraint duration) varied within the interval of 1s
and 18.7s.
These differences could be explained by the organization of work in SH3 where the operator
in charge of the cut was most of the time out of the bleeding area. On the contrary, in SH7,
operating procedure has been optimized to reduce this delay. It should also be noticed that
limited range of variation (0-5s in SH7 and 0-10s in SH2) were associated with the lowest
mean duration observed in these slaughterhouses confirming the possibility of optimization.
At last, in the two slaughterhouses where animals were cut in lateral position, the average
duration was similar and equal to 3 or 4 seconds.
Vocalisation during restraint and rotation (Table 24)
Except in SH6 and SH8, where 30% of the animals vocalised, and in SH14, SH15 where no
animals vocalised, the frequency varied between 3% (SH4) to 16% (SH7).
Animals may vocalise at several steps of the process. Rotation in itself, even if it is a stressful
procedure (which is characterised by some specific reactions of the eye balls), may not be
the main factors. Poor head restraint (in particular hyperextension) was often linked to
vocalisation.
Quality of head restraint
Head restraint was carried out using either a classical metal equipment or a rope halter
(SH10 with an additional metallic chin lift, SH11).
During the cut, the knife was seen, in certain cases, coming in contact with the head
restraint (SH16, SH7, SH11 and SH13).
87

Table 25 : Frequency of adult bovine with a bad head restraint according to the slaughterhouse
Number of animals
nb
% animals with bad

head restraint
UPRIGHT
SH11
60
60
100%
SH14
56
5.4%
SH15
28
0%
LATERAL
SH6
51
1,7%
SH10
60
0%
INVERTED
SH1
85.7%
SH4
100%
SH5
36
36
100%
SH7
63
3,2%
SH9
60
5%
SH12
24
0%
SH13
61
61
100%
Table 26: Restraint durations (s) of calves

Restraint duration
Rotation duration
Inverted duration
From start restraint to
From start to end of
From end rotation to
start cut
the rotation inside
start cut inside
Restraint duration
Restraint duration
Nb
Range
Mean
Range
Mean (SD)
Range
Mean (SD)
SH8 inverted
46
15 32
20.3
47
5.8 (-)
06
3.8 (-)
SH12 inverted
36
5 19
12.4 (2.7)
6 55
26.6 (10.5)
SH16 inverted
73
10 196
23.8
4 13
6.9 (1.8)
0 13
2.6 (3.0)
SH16 upright
5 16
8.4
SH18 inverted
68
37
4.7 (0.7)
06
1.5 (1.1)
88
Head restraint was judged as bad almost systematically in some slaughterhouses (SH11,
SH13, SH1, SH4, and SH5) (Table 25). In others, the frequency varied from 0% (SH10, SH15)
to 5% (SH9, SH14) with SH6 and SH7 in-between. In SH1, SH4 and SH5, bad head restraint
was systematically associated with the start of the rotation before the end of the head
restraint. In SH11, the use of rope was considered as not satisfactory by the observers. In
SH13, animals were able to move their head after restraining. Head movements or bad head
positioning were generally the reason why the observers considered the head restraint as
bad in the other slaughterhouses.
CASE OF CALVES
Restraint durations were measured in SH16 and SH8 and varied between 23.8s and 20.3s. In
SH16, based on the nine calves cut in upright position, we also calculated duration of 8.4s of
restraint in upright position. Rotation duration varied between 4.7s and 6.9s in SH18, SH16
and SH8. The duration in SH12 was more than twice of those observed in other
slaughterhouses (12.4s). The time spent in inverted position by the calves was less than 3.8s
in SH18, SH16 and SH8 but 26.6s in SH12 (Table 26). The results obtained in SH12 suggested
an inadequate management of the calves that could be explained by the use of rope for
head restraint which induced a very bad head restraint of the animals (100% - Table 27).
Head restraint was also judged as bad for all the animals in SH18 in relation with the lack of
real head restraint. A specific design was present in this slaughterhouse with the head
restrained simultaneously with the body by a mobile part situated on the top of the device
Calves did not vocalize during the restraint in SH18 and SH8 and only 1 out of 36 did in SH12.
In SH16, 10.9% of the calves slaughtered in inverted position and none of the 9 in upright
position vocalized but the contrary was recorded in SH17 where 18.3% of the animals
slaughtered in upright position vocalized and none of those slaughtered in inverted position
(Table 27).
89
Table 27: Vocalization and quality of head restraint of calves

Number
% animals with
% animals with Bad
of animals
Vocalization
head restraint
SH8 inverted
47
0%
SH12 inverted
36
2.8%
100%
SH16 inverted
64
10.9%
17.2%
SH16 upright
0%
0%
SH17 inverted
16
0%
0%
SH17 upright
82
18.3%
0%
SH18 inverted
68
0%
100%
90
CONCLUSION
Restraint duration is one of the key factors regarding the risk of poor welfare when animals
are slaughtered without stunning. It is expected that the longer it is the higher the risk to
have an impaired welfare. Rotation and duration in the inverted position will increase the
stress of the animals.
Regarding the duration of immobilization, our results show that, with the current operating
procedure and restraint devices used, the mean duration observed to perform all these
operations are in the same range of time duration using a rotating system or an upright
system for adults. The duration measured confirmed the reduction of the time needed to
restraint the animals by using modern rotating device (Facomia-like) compared to older
design (Dun et al., 1990).
In the present study, the main factors that increase the duration of restraint are the design
of the device (especially with some particular rotating device observed during our visits), the
head restraining procedure (manual vs automatic independently of the restraint system) and
the optimization of the process (operator ready to perform the bleeding at the end of the
head restraint or rotation).
The time it takes to rotate the animals can be less than 10s and represents, in the optimized
situation observed, approximately one third of the total restraint duration. Using the upright
position may allow reducing the total duration when using the same device. But due to the
limitation of the sample size, the behaviour of the calves and the fact that this device does
not include any belly plate, this remains theoretical.
In most of the slaughterhouses visited, the animals spent less than 10s in inverted position.
It is possible to optimize the operating procedure to reduce this duration. Evidence from this
study show that the cut can be performed immediately at the end of the rotation. In order
to do so, a good head restraint before the rotation and a sufficient number and well
organised operators are of particular importance.
Vocalization could be an indicator of stress of the animals. Regarding the different position,
our results suggest that they are less frequent in the upright position for adults but no
conclusion can be drawn for calves. For improvement, it would be of particular relevance to
interpret vocalization regarding the different step of the restraining procedure e.g.
vocalizations associated with risk of hyperextension and vocalizations associated with
inverted position.
91

Table 28 : Number of cuts per animal - Adult bovine
(Range and Mean: occurrence per animal)
Nb
Range
Mean (SD)
Method
Knife
length
UPRIGHT
SH11
60
8 28
15.1 (4.4)
30
SH14
56
16
3.3 (1.5)
NA
SH15
28
3-4
2.5 (0.2)
20
LATERAL
SH6
57
1 10
5.2 (1.5)
36
SH10
60
4 11
5.8 (1.6)
40
INVERTED
SH1
60
19
3.7 (1.6)
26
SH2
60
4 18
10.3 (2.4)
26
SH3
20
13
1.2 (0.5)
26
SH4
60
4 23
8.5 (4.4)
26
SH5
60
3 22
8.8 (3.7)
26
SH7
63
24
2.4 (0.6)
45-50
SH8
51
28
4.4 (2.2)
S+D
45
SH9
60
4 15
8.7 (2.0)
30
SH12
24
14
1.7 (0.8)
45
SH13
61
28
3.6 (1.4)
45
D: Dhabiha, S: Shechita
92
CUTTING AND BLEEDING

NUMBER OF CUTS FOR ADULTS
Fifteen animals out of 726 adult bovine vocalised during the cut. This happened mainly in
SH6 (6 animals) and occasionally in SH7, SH9, SH10, SH11 and SH13. It could be noticed that
the highest frequency of animals vocalizing during restraint was also recorded in SH6
suggesting also an effect of the emotional status of the animals.
The average number of cuts varied from 1.2 to 15.1 depending on the slaughterhouses
(Table 28). However, the variability per slaughterman was relatively low suggesting that
number of cuts is a good indicator of the practice or the skill of the operator.
The highest number of cuts was observed in SH11 (15.1) where the animals were in the
upright position but, on the contrary, in SH14 and SH15 (also upright), the mean number of
cuts varied from 2.5 to 3.3 and were similar to those recorded in other slaughterhouses
where the bleeding was performed in the inverted position (SH7, SH12, SH13, SH1, SH3).
Where the cut was performed with the animals restrained on the side, the results were
similar in the 2 slaughterhouses (5.2 to 5.8 SH6 and SH10). This could suggest increased
number of cuts in this position but it is difficult to draw firm conclusions as we also observed
higher number of cuts in slaughterhouses where animals were in the inverted position (SH9,
SH2, SH4, and SH5).
The length of the knife used by the operators varied from 20cm to 45cm and there was no
obvious relation between this specification and the number of cuts.
The Jewish operators (SH12 and SH14) performed the cut with a limited number of
movements (1.6 and 3.3 respectively) but, even though the variability was higher between
Muslim operators, we observed similar number of cuts for several Muslim slaughtermen
(SH7, SH13, SH1, SH3, and SH15).
The objective data do not allow to directly link the number of cuts to the quality of head
restraint but according to observers, there were obvious relations in some cases e.g. in SH4
and SH5.
93

Table 29 : Quality of bleeding Adult bovine
Number of
animals
% animals with no
% of animals with
Both carotids
impeded flow
severed
Nb
Freq
Nb
Freq
UPRIGHT
SH11
60
3.3%
0%
SH14
37
13.5%
9.1%
SH15
28
0%
21.4%
LATERAL
SH6
57
1.8%
10
17.5%
SH10
60
17
28.3%
13.3%
INVERTED
SH1
25
8%
3.4%
SH2
60
3.3%
0%
SH3
20
0%
SH4
60
1.7%
6.7%
SH5
60
0%
10
16.7%
SH7
63
0%
0%
SH8
42
0%
18
42.8%
SH9
60
15%
6.7%
SH12
24
0%
0%
SH13
31
1.6%
9.8%
94
QUALITY OF BLEEDING OF ADULTS

Both carotids cut
On average, one carotid was not severed in 5.4% of the animals (Table 29). Relative high
level were observed in all three positions. 8.0% and 15% where slaughter was performed in
inverted position (in, respectively, SH1 and SH9), 28.3% where slaughter was performed in
lateral position (SH10) and 13% where the animals were in upright position (SH14).
The type of slaughter (Shechita and Dhabiha) did not appear to have an effect.
Impeded flow
Overall, impeded flow was observed in 9.8% of the animals (Table 29). The highest levels
were recorded in SH6, SH8, SH10, SH5, SH14, and SH15 where more than 15% of the animals
showed impeded flow.
This result may suggest that the lateral position (SH6, SH10) or upright position (SH14, SH15)
may lead to an increased risk for Impeded flow. In SH15, for example, the observers
reported that after the animals were cut, the lower part of the neck made contact with the
metal part of the restraint device and this appeared to cause physical occlusion of the
vessels and "impeded flow".
However, it should also be noticed that in SH8 and SH5 (animals in the inverted position),
high frequencies were also recorded, linked to poor skills of slaughtermen according to the
observers.
In most of the cases impeded flow was clearly linked with blood clots and both variables
were generally similar when they were both observed.
Blood in trachea
Blood in the trachea was assessed in sub samples of SH8, SH13, SH1, SH2, SH3, SH4, SH5
representing 148 animals. Presence of blood was observed in almost all the animals (except
4 animals).
95

Table 30 : Number of cuts per animal - calves
(Range and Mean: occurrence per animal)
Nb
68
36
64
9
82
16
58
SH18
SH12
SH16 inverted
SH16 upright
SH17 upright
SH17 inverted
SH8
Range
12
14
3-7
2-3
1-2
15
24
Mean (SD)
1.0 (0.1)
1.8 (0.8)
4.7 (0.8)
2.9 (0.33)
1.1 (0.2)
2.8 (1.3)
2.6 (0.7)
Method
D
S
S
S+D
D
S
S
Knife length
30
45
42
42
40
40
40
D: Dhabiha, S: Shechita
Table 31 : Quality of bleeding calves

Number of
% animals with no Both
% of animals with
animals
carotids severed
impeded flow
Nb
Freq
Nb
Freq
SH8
46
0%
25
54.3%
SH12
36
11.1%
13.9%
SH16 inverted
64
6.3%
43
67.3%
SH17 upright
82
0.0%
SH17 inverted
16
0.0%
56.3%
SH18
19
5.3%
12
63.2%
96
NUMBER OF CUTS AND QUALITY OF BLEEDING OF CALVES
It should be noticed firstly that, except in SH18 and SH17 upright, all the animals were
bleeding according to the Shechita. It appeared that the mean number of cuts when Dhabiha
was performed was lower (1.0 1.1) than when Shechita was applied (1.8 4.7). This could
be explained by the religious requirement of absence of knife pressure for the Shechita.
Overall, only one calf vocalized during the cut.
The mean number of cuts for calves was generally lower than those observed for adults with
less extreme value. Regarding the position of the animals at the cut, when Dhabiha was
performed, the number of cuts was similar between the inverted (SH18) and upright position
(SH17 upright). In the other slaughterhouses, all the animals were cut in inverted position
according to the Shechita method (Table 30).
Nine calves out of 283 were observed with only one carotid severed representing 5.3% to
11.1% of their respective groups (SH18, SH16, and SH12). The frequencies of animals with
impeded flow were high in all the slaughterhouses (range 13.9% - 63.2%) (Table 31).
CONCLUSION
The number of cuts can be similar when the animals are slaughtered in upright or in inverted
position. From this study, the skill of the operators appeared to be the main factor of
variation. Overall, when adult animals were cut in upright position, our results suggest a
higher risk of impeded flow in relation with the head movement of the animals during
bleeding and the design of the device.
The number of cuts per calve is reduced compared to adults. But the frequency of animals
with impeded flow is higher suggesting a need for further research and improvement.
Due to the limited number of observations, no firm conclusion can be drawn regarding the
effect of lateral position. However, our results suggest some possible negative effects on the
number of cuts and the quality of bleeding and further investigations are needed.
97

Table 32 : Frequency of animals with spontaneous eyes movements according to the period after
the cut (Source: BoRest study assessment of welfare)
Group
total SH6 (n)

"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH10 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH1 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH3 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH5 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH7 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH8 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH13 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH8 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH16 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH17 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
Time elapsed from the start of cut

0-15s
15-30s 30-45s 45-60s 60-75s
LATERAL
51
51
51
39
25
35
7
2
2
0
68.4
13.7
3.9
5.1
0.0
60
60
60
60
60
60
28
0
0
0
100.0
46.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
INVERTED
60
60
60
60
60
52
13
2
0
0
86.7
21.7
3.3
0.0
0.0
20
20
20
20
20
19
2
0
0
0
95.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
60
60
60
60
60
54
5
2
1
1
90.0
8.3
3.3
1.7
1.7
62
62
61
25
37
37
24
8
7
4
59.7
38.7
13.1
28.0
10.8
42
42
42
0
0
27
8
4
64.3
19.1
9.5
58
61
61
61
58
58
60
57
50
34
100.0
98.4
93.4
82.0
58.6
CALVES INVERTED
46
46
46
0
0
39
12
2
84,8
26,1
4,35
65
65
62
46
22
29
19
6
10
4
44,6
29,2
9,68
21,7
18,2
16
16
16
13
2
16
16
16
5
0
100
100
100
38,5
0
75-90s
0
60
0
0.0
60
0
0.0
20
0
0.0
60
0
0.0
49
5
10.2
0
50
21
42.0
0
0
0
-
98
SIGNS OF CONSCIOUSNESS
SPONTANEOUS EYES MOVEMENTS
In all the slaughterhouses, blinking and spontaneous eye movements were present in the
majority of the adult animals at the beginning of bleeding varying from 59.7% in SH7 to
100% in SH10 and SH13 (Table 32).
The frequency dropped during the 15s 30s period in all slaughterhouses between 8.3 and
46.7% except in SH13 where it remained at a high level of 98.4% with no particular
explanation.
During the third period (30s 45s), in most of the slaughterhouses, we did not observe this
sign except in SH7 where it was still present for 13.1% of the animals and in SH13 (93.4%).
The frequency of animals that showed eye ball rotation followed exactly the same tendency
as the spontaneous eye movements with a strong decrease of frequencies between the first
and the third period after the cut. This evolution was also observed in SH13 (Table 33).
The course of spontaneous eyes movements was similar for calves in SH16 and SH8 to those
generally observed for adults with a decrease between the first fifteen seconds period when
the frequencies varied between 44.6% and 84.8 and the third period when the frequencies
varied between 4.3% and 9.7%. On the contrary, the frequency was stable in SH17 inverted
until 45s but seemed to drop after (5 over 13 between 45s and 60s). Frequencies of eye ball
rotation were seen in all slaughterhouses decreasing from the cut (8.7% - 62.5% during the 0
15s period) to the third period (0% - 1.6% during 30s 45s period).
99
100

Table 33 : Frequency of animals with Eye ball rotation according to the period after the cut
Group
total SH6 (n)

"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH1 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH3 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH5 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH7 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH13 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH8 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH16 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH17 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)

0-15s 15-30s 30-45s 45-60s 60-75s
LATERAL
51
51
51
39
25
27
8
0
0
0
52.9
15.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
INVERTED
60
60
60
60
60
42
12
5
1
0
70.0
20.0
8.3
1.7
0.0
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
1
0
0
100.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
60
60
60
60
60
44
5
0
1
0
73.3
8.3
0.0
1.7
0.0
62
62
61
25
39
57
27
5
1
4
91.9
43.5
8.2
4.0
10.3
59
61
61
61
59
39
38
4
2
0
66.1
62.3
6.6
3.3
0.0
CALVES - INVERTED
46
46
46
0
0
4
6
0
8,7
13,0
0
65
65
62
0
0
9
7
1
13,8
10,8
1,61
16
16
16
13
0
10
9
0
0
62,5
56,3
0
0
75-90s
14
0
0.0
60
0
0.0
20
0
0.0
60
0
0.0
49
3
6.1
50
0
0.0
0
0
0
-
101

Table 34 : Frequency of animals with corneal reflex according to the period after the cut
Group
15s

30s
45s
60s
75s
90s
UPRIGHT
60
0
0
0
0
60
100
LATERAL
42
41
26
11
0
28
22
8
2
66.6
53.7
30.8
18.2
INVERTED
60
60
60
60
60
105s
120s
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
60
60
total SH11 (n)

"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
60
60
100
total SH6 (n)

"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
28
28
100
total SH1 (n)
60
"yes" (n)
60
60
60
60
60
60
58
53
"yes" (%)
100
100
100
100
100
100
96.7
88.3
total SH3 (n)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
"yes" (n)
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
15
"yes" (%)
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
75
total SH5 (n)
60
60
58
47
27
15
"yes" (n)
60
60
58
47
27
15
"yes" (%)
total SH7 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH10 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH12 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH13 (n)
100
0
60
60
100
24
23
95.8
58
100
57
21
36.8
60
60
100
24
22
91.7
61
100
51
20
39.2
60
60
100
24
17
70.8
61
100
33
10
30.3
59
59
100%
23
12
52.2
61
100
33
5
15.2
60
55
91.7
20
6
30.0
54
100
27
6
22.2
60
50
83.3
19
5
26.3
42
66.7
22
2
9.1
60
40
66.7
16
3
18.8
29
100
10
2
20.0
60
27
45.0
16
2
12.5
14
"yes" (n)
58
61
61
58
40
24
14
"yes" (%)
100
100
100
95.1
74.1
57.1
48.3
21.4
total SH16 (n)

"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH8 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH12 (n)
65
65
100
43
1
2,33
36
CALVES INVERTED
63
33
48
61
30
43
96,8
90,9
89,6
30
25
0
10
11
33,3
44
36
36
35
59
6
10,2
0
35
0
0
32
0
0
31
0
0
31
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH17 (n)
36
100
15
35
97,2
16
34
94,4
16
32
91,4
12
31
88,6
2
22
68,8
0
19
61,3
0
13
41,9
0
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
15
100
16
100
16
100
8
66,7
0
0
102
CORNEAL REFLEX
The corneal reflex was present in almost all the adult animals tested during the first period
(Table 34).
The frequency of animals that showed corneal reflex decreased with time after the cut but
more or less quickly according to the slaughterhouse. At 45s, the frequency ranged from
39.2% (SH7) to 100% (SH10, SH13, SH1, SH3, SH5) with intermediate results for SH6. In some
slaughterhouses, this decrease was clearly delayed after 90s (SH1, SH3 and SH5).
In some cases, it is possible that we have overestimated the percentage of animals that have
prolonged corneal reflex because, in most slaughterhouses, the sample was reduced after
60s due to the release or hoisting of some animals. Therefore, we can suppose that those
which were not released/hoisted at this time expressed more frequently some signs of
consciousness.
Nevertheless, there appeared to be huge differences in terms of percentage of animals and
patterns of decline between slaughterhouses suggesting differences in terms of bleeding
efficiency.
Similar patterns were observed for calves. The frequency of calves with positive corneal
reflex was stable (SH17) or slightly decreasing (SH16, SH12) between the cut and 45s. Then
the frequencies started to decrease more or less quickly depending on the slaughterhouse:
between 45s and 60s in SH17 (100% to 66.7%), between 60s and 75s in SH16 (89.6% to
10.2%), between 75s and 90s in SH12 (88.6% to 68.8%).
However, from a practical point of view, several points should be noticed. It may sometimes
be difficult to avoid touching the eyelid and the eye lashes, reason why several observers
used as much as possible a paintbrush or a pen. This technical problem may explain part of
the differences in our results. Furthermore, at the beginning of the bleeding period, because
of blinking and eye movements or the muscular tonus of the eyes, the test of the corneal
reflex may not be fully relevant. For example, in several cases, we observed that animals
may be negative at one time and positive some seconds later due to a change in the status
of the eyes becoming open-fixed.
103
Table 35 : Frequency of animals with Struggle according to the period after the cut
0-15s
15-30s 30-45s
45-60s
60-75s
75-90s
90-105s
LATERAL
total SH6 (n)
51
51
51
39
25
0
0
"Yes" (n)
4
2
0
0
0
"Yes" (%)
7.8
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
INVERTED
total SH1 (n)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
"yes" (n)
5
2
0
0
0
1
0
"yes" (%)
8.3
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
total SH3 (n)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
"yes" (n)
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
"yes" (%)
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
total SH5 (n)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
"yes" (n)
13
2
1
0
0
0
0
"yes" (%)
21.7
3.3
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
total SH7 (n)
62
62
61
24
38
50
42
"Yes" (n)
20
6
1
2
2
1
0
"yes" (%)
32.3
9.7
1.6
8.3
5.3
2.0
0.0
Total SH8 (n)
42
42
38
0
0
0
0
"yes" (n)
6
4
9
"yes" (%)
14.3
9.5
23.8
total SH10 (n)
60
60
0
0
0
0
0
"yes" (n)
33
38
"yes" (%)
55.0
63.3
total SH13 (n)
59
61
61
61
60
50
33
"yes" (n)
17
17
7
6
0
1
2
"yes" (%)
28.8
27.9
11.5
9.8
0.0
2.0
6.1
CALVES - INVERTED
total SH8 (n)
46
46
46
0
0
0
0
"Yes" (n)
12
9
0
"Yes" (%)
26.1
19.6
0
total SH16 (n)
65
65
62
46
22
0
0
"Yes" (n)
10
13
2
4
1
"Yes" (%)
15.4
20
3.23
8.7
4.55
total SH17 (n)
16
16
16
13
2
0
0
"Yes" (n)
3
3
0
0
0
"Yes" (%)
18.8
18.8
0
0
0
-
105-120s
0
60
0
0.0
20
0
0.0
60
0
0.0
25
0
0.0
0
0
17
1
5.9
0
0
0
-
104
POSTURE AND BODY MOVEMENTS
Loss of posture
It was only possible to assess loss of posture when the animals were weight bearing on all
four feet (i.e. upright without a belly plate or a lateral pusher). In the UK, it was impossible
to observe this behaviour because the animals were supported by the restraint device even
when fully insensible. This sign was only observed in SH11 where 41 out of 60 animals lost
posture during the first 15s and the other 19 between 15s and 30s.
Righting body or head reflexes
No body righting reflex was observed.
Head righting reflex was only observed in SH7 where the percentage of animals varied
between 11.2 at 30s and 2.4 at 105s (with an unexpected value of 25.9% at 60s but
monitored on half of the animals and defined as reflex movements by the observer) and
SH13 where it declined from 28.6% at 30s to 16.3% at 105s.
However, righting reflex should be interpreted with caution because it may depend on the
restraint applied to the animals during the post-cut period. Therefore it is difficult to
compare between slaughterhouses. Furthermore, it is also difficult to distinguish between
intentional or reflex movements.
Struggle
The possibility of recording struggle and the frequency may also depend on the restraint
procedure and the device. However, struggle is typical reaction of bovine animals in restraint
devices and was observed for adults in all the slaughterhouses during the first 30 second
with a decreasing course (Table 35). The frequency varied from 7.8% to 55% during the first
period and from 3.3% to 63.3% during the second period. After 30s, this sign was only
observed in SH8 and rarely in SH7 and SH13.
In SH10, lateral position of the animals may have enhanced the expression of this sign but
this was not confirmed by SH6.
Struggles were less frequent in calves (from 15.4% to 26.1% during the first period) and also
almost disappeared in the third period (0% to 3.2%).
105

Table 36 : Frequency of animals who inspire according to the period after the cut
0-15 s
total SH6 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
51
17
33.3
total SH7 (n)

"Yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
Total SH8 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
total SH13 (n)
"yes" (n)
"yes" (%)
61
2
3.3
42
10
23.8
58
41
70.7
total SH8 (n)

"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH16 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
total SH17 (n)
"Yes" (n)
"Yes" (%)
46
3
6,52
65
2
3,08
16
14
87,5

30-45 s 45-60 s 60-75 s 75-90 s
LATERAL
51
51
40
25
14
42
48
34
22
12
82.3
94.1
85
88
85.8
INVERTED
60
61
60
33
46
39
56
22
20
38
65.0
91.8
36.7
60.6
82.6
42
42
0
0
0
16
37
38.1
88.1
61
60
60
58
50
52
47
27
14
5
85.2
78.3
45.0
24.1
10.0
CALVES INVERTED
46
46
0
0
0
28
39
60,1
84,8
65
62
46
22
6
19
49
36
16
6
29,2
79,0
78,3
72,7
100
16
16
13
2
0
12
7
2
0
75
43,8
15,4
0
-
15-30 s
90-105 s
105-120 s
0
-
0
-
40
33
82.5
0
33
1
3.0
24
20
83.3
0
17
0
0.0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
106
ATTEMPT TO INSPIRE
This behaviour was assessed in SH6, SH7, SH8 and SH13 for adults (Table 36).
During the first 15s, the percentage of animals inspiring was relatively low although
depending on the slaughterhouses. Subsequently, the frequency of animals that inspired
increased until 30 to 45s. Then the frequency subsequently decreased. It should be noticed
that this late decrease may also result from a decrease in number of inspirations per unit
time. Consequently, the interpretation of these figures may depend on the time the animals
are observed.
Frequency of attempt to inspire behaviour followed a similar scheme for calves with
increased frequencies between the first and third period in SH16 and SH8 (stable also during
the fourth period in this slaughterhouse). In SH17, however, the frequency appeared to be
very high at the beginning and then decreased quickly until the fourth period.
CONCLUSION
It has already been emphasized that loss of consciousness after the cut i.e. during
haemorrhaging cannot be easily monitored in slaughterhouses and may be very variable
from an animal to another. At the end, the death of the animal may be characterised by the
end of bleeding and permanent loss of breathing, the loss of muscle tone and the loss of
eyes reflexes and presence of permanent midriasis.
Some authors hypothesized that the animals may probably experience different states of
consciousness during the bleeding. Gregory et al. (2009) suggested that loss of posture may
be a first sign of loss of consciousness. Some authors proposed to check different signs
based on the ability of the animals to exhibit signs of brain function or cognitive responses
(Limon et al., 2010). The Dialrel project also proposed similar recommendations (Velarde et
al., 2010) such as loss of posture and no attempt to regain it, absence of response to
threatening movements, absence of eye movements.
In this study, we have included some of these signs of consciousness with a particular focus
on the course after the cut as we expected that differences between groups will first appear
on the frequency of the different signs in relation with the time after the cut. However, due
to numerous practical limitations and probably a high variability between and within
slaughterhouses, it is not possible to draw simple conclusions about an effect of restraining
system.
107
Table 37 : Summary of the frequencies of adults bovine showing the different signs of
consciousness or loss of consciousness according to the period after the cut
Time after the cut
Signs observed
Upright posture
Struggle
0 - 15s
15s 30s
30s 45s
45s 90s
Frequency
range
33%
7.8% - 55%
Tendency
Comments
SH11 only
Spontaneous eyes
movements
Eye ball rotation
Corneal reflex
59.7% - 100%
52.9% - 100%
95.8% - 100%
Inspire
Upright posture
Struggle
3.3% - 70.7%
0%
3.9% - 63.3%
+
-
Spontaneous eyes
movements
Eye ball rotation
Corneal reflex
8.3% - 98.4%
8.3% - 43.5%
36.8% - 100%
=/-
Inspire
Upright posture
Struggle
38.1% - 85.2%
0% - 23.8%
Spontaneous eyes
movements
Eye ball rotation
Corneal reflex
0% - 93.4%
0% - 8.3%
39.2% - 100%
=/-
Inspire
Upright posture
Struggle
78.3% - 94.1%
0% - 9.8%
Sspontaneous eyes
movements
Eye ball rotation
Corneal reflex
0% - 82%
0 - 10.3%
22.2% - 100%
=/-
Inspire
10% - 85%
SH7 not included
SH11 only
8.3% - 46.7%
without SH13
66.6% - 100% without
SH7
0% - 13.1%
without SH13
53.7% - 100%
without SH7
0% - 13.1%
without SH13
26.3% 100% without
SH7
108
We can just underline that SH7 (Dhabiha inverted) and SH12 for adults (Shechita inverted)
were both characterised by:
Low number of cuts, 100% of both carotids severed, 0% of Impeded flow,

Quick decrease or low frequency of animals exhibiting corneal reflex (in particular
SH7)
This result suggests that it is possible to hasten the loss of consciousness by good practice
and bleeding efficiency but further investigations are necessary to better understand what
the factors are that could explain these results.
However, overall, our results may be considered as a framework of course of signs of
consciousness/unconsciousness after the cut. We summarized in Table 37 the range of the
frequency measured according to the delay after the cut.
This table suggests a two-step evolution which is coherent with the literature mentioned
above. During the first 30 s, spontaneous eye movements and the ability to maintain posture
are decreasing dramatically. We can also assume that, during this period, struggle is
interpreted, as intended movements and therefore follows the same pattern as posture.
Frequency of eye ball rotation also decreased. At the end of this first step, during the 30s
45s period, most of these signs have disappeared and we usually observe animals that have
fixed open eyes with no attempt to struggle. These events take place while an increase of
frequency of the animals that are exhibiting attempt to inspire behaviour takes place.
Most of the animals have corneal reflex at 30s or 45s.
After 45s, with caution because of the reduced number of animals, we mainly observed a
decrease in the frequency of animals that express attempt to Inspire and a decrease of
animals that have a corneal reflex. The decrease of frequency of attempt to Inspire
behaviour seems to occur concomitantly with an increase of the delay between two
inspirations.
These data could provide slaughterhouses with guidance to manage the restraining of the
animals during the bleeding period, taking into account that it is compulsory to restrain the
animals until the loss of consciousness. In practice, we can suggest that animals should be
restrained in the device for at least 45s before checking that they will not exhibit sign of eyes
movements, signs of maintained posture or intentional struggle (also head righting when it
can be observed). If these signs are absent, the animal may be released out of the restraint
device and then further process (in particular dressing) should not be carried out before the
loss of corneal reflex and the end of attempt to inspire. A similar strategy may be applied
for calves as it appeared the same trends in our results.
109
110
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSION
This study was an opportunity to collect numerous data about restraining and bleeding
practices in European slaughterhouses where bovine animals are slaughtered without priorcut stunning.
According to the literature, the position of the animals in the restraint device may have an
effect on the stress and welfare of bovine animals. The longer is the duration of restraint and
unnatural position, the higher is the risk of impaired welfare.
Taking into account all the results obtained, it did not appear that the position of the animals
at the time of bleeding was the main factor that can explain the variability of the durations
of restraint or the cutting practices observed between slaughterhouses and slaughter men.
For most of the variables, the ranges of the averages obtained in the three positions
(inverted, lateral, upright) were similar. At first, a reduction of duration of immobilisation
before the cut was expected with upright devices but this was not confirmed by the
observations in commercial conditions. We also expected differences in the ease of cut that
could be estimated by the number of cuts (higher for upright position) and the quality of
bleeding (lower for upright position). Our results showed some differences but most of them
could be associated with some particularities of the design of the device, the quality of the
head restraint and the skill of the operators.
Due to the large variability of the design of the slaughterhouses (layout of the corridor,
layout of the restraining and bleeding area, design of the restraining device, etc) and skills
and capabilities of the slaughter men observed during this study, it was not possible to take
into account and analyse all the factors. Based on the initial surveys (see section 4), it was
estimated that 70% to 80% of the bovine animals are slaughtered in the lateral or inverted
position. Upright restraint devices are mainly used in the UK where they are mandatory.
Therefore, although attempts were made in other countries to include this type of device in
the sample, the number of slaughterhouses with upright restraint visited in the present
study was, at the end, very limited.
111
112
However, in order to identify what could be the best observed practices in this sample, four
experts of the consortium were asked to classify slaughterhouses of adult bovine animals for
each variable measured, to judge the relevance of this variable regarding animal welfare and
to propose ranges for best observed practices and alarms. In this case, best observed
practices shall not be interpreted as an absolute but as a state of art for continuous
improvement in slaughterhouses.
The output of their assessment was used to propose a list of key points regarding animal
welfare (see below for details and synthesis in Annex 10) for slaughter without stunning,
part of them also for slaughter with stunning. These results could be used, for example, by
animal welfare officers in slaughterhouses to design standard operating procedures,
monitoring tools and/or implement an improvement action plan. According to Regulation
(EC) No 1099/2009, training is compulsory and operators shall hold a certificate of
competence. Competences are precisely described in the EU legislation. In our view, training
should be regularly reinforced and updated. However the modalities for training the
personnel are defined and implemented by the competent authorities of Member States
and various approaches have been taken. Consequently, we consider that these
recommendations could also be used as objectives for deepening training of the operators
and we emphasize some key points. At last, these recommendations are expected to provide
manufacturers with guidance for developing their devices and improving the designs of
existing models.
113
114

RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST OBSERVED PRACTICES FOR ADULT BOVINE ANIMALS
ENTRANCE IN THE RESTRAINING SYSTEM - ALL DEVICES
The layout of the end of the corridor and the device should be designed to minimize
difficulties for the animals to enter the restraining device. Adequate number of
operators, anti-backward systems, lighting of the bleeding area and avoidance of
distractions or source of fear should also be considered
Corridor and restraining system should have a non-slippery floor surface
Operators must be trained for the handling of the bovine animals (legal requirement)
Monitoring and best observed practices
The monitoring of the use of electric prod may be used as an indicator of good
practice. The best observed practice in the present sample was a mean use on less
than 20% of the animals (with maximum number per animal of 3 or 4). Humananimal interactions may also be monitored but it is needed to distinguish between
neutral (gently touching an animal) and negative (e.g. kicking). These last ones should
be considered as if they were use of an electric prod.
Behavioural indicators of stress are the result of several factors including the
emotional status of the animals, the transport, the handling in the lairage and in the
corridor. In the best situation, behavioural indicators of stress other than vocalisation
should be expressed by less than 10% of the bovine animals. No slips and falls should
be observed and a frequency higher than 10% should induce urgent corrective
measures. Vocalizations are one of the best indicators of stress because this
behaviour is not restricted by the device. The frequency of vocalizations should be less
than 10% and frequency higher than 20% needs urgent corrective actions.
Duration of time needed to introduce the animal in the device is not an issue from a
welfare point of view. However, taking into account behaviours of both the operators
and the animals, this measure could provide the animal welfare officer with
additional information. For instance, short periods may be linked to an abusive use of
the electric prod in the corridor. On the contrary, long durations may be linked to
obstruction or distraction.
115
116
RESTRAINING PROCEDURE - ALL DEVICES
Restraining can be a stressful and painful procedure for bovine animals. Total
restraint duration before the cut should be limited as far as possible. This implies
that restraint should not start without verifying that the cut could be performed
without any delay (Regulation EC No 1099/2009).
Operators must be trained for the handling of the bovine animals and the
functioning of the device (legal requirement).
Operators should be able to monitor the quality of restraint and the behaviour of
the animals by direct observation and/or by communication with other operators.
The different operations should be successively carried out without any delay and
taking into account the manufacturers recommendations and user guide that must
be provided to the operators (Regulation EC No 1099/2009).
Hyperextension of the neck must not be performed.
All other restraining equipment (back pusher, side plates, neck yoke) must not use
excessive pressure that causes injury, pain or distress (vocalizations, struggling, etc) .
The cut should be carried out without any delay after the head restraint.
If for whatever reason (personal or mechanical) there is a delay in the slaughter
process when the animal is restrained, it must be immediately stunned with a
penetrative captive bolt.
Considering a normal smooth restraining procedure (ie happening without any

sudden change or interruption), the duration of restraint before the cut should be
on average less than 30s (with a maximum up to 60s).
The delay between the end of the restraining procedure and the cut may be
minimized, with an average of less than 5s (maximum of no more than 10s). This
delay includes washing of the neck when it is performed.
Vocalization could be used as a monitoring tool of the quality of restraint even if this
behaviour also depends on previous events and handling. The frequency of animals
vocalizing should be less than 5% and a proportion of higher than 10% requires
urgent correction action plan.
Quality of head restraint is one of the key parameter regarding the performance of
the cut and the risk of pain for the animals. However, it may be difficult to assess
because of the risk of hyperextension and the differences of morphology of the neck
and head of the different categories of animals. Therefore slaughterhouses should
focus on reducing as much as possible the incidents, in particular those linked to
inadequate application of operating procedure. .
Modification of the design of the chin lift, layout of the area or optical system to allow
the operators to observe head and behavioural reactions of the animals,
communication between operators (the one who is driving the head restrainer and the
one who will carry out the bleeding) are some examples of measures that can be taken
to improve the quality of head restraint.
117
118
RESTRAINING PROCEDURE - UPRIGHT SYSTEM:
Animals must not be lifted off the ground with the belly plate (i.e. legs no longer
significantly supporting weight of the animal)
Restraint must have a recessed belly plate (otherwise it can cause balking,
obstructions and falls)
RESTRAINING PROCEDURE - ROTATING SYSTEM
Rotation should start immediately after the restraint of the animals , and should be
as smoothly as possible i.e. without any sudden changes or interruptions
The duration of the rotation is mainly depending on the device, the angle of rotation
and the efficiency of the initial restraint. Duration of rotation may be on average less
than 15s (with a maximum up to 30 s) when the animals are fully inverted. This
duration should be reduced in other final positions.
119
120
CUT AND BLEEDING EFFICIENCY - ALL SYSTEMS
Cut should be performed in order to maximize bleeding. Many factors such as

category of animals, quality of head restraint, position of the cut, sharpness of the
knife are influencing the quality of the cut. The skill and capability of the operator
should be such that they know these potential risks and are able to manage them as
much as possible.
MONITORING AND BEST OBSERVED PRACTICES
The number of cuts may be a good indicator of the capability of the slaughtermen.
However, the number of the cuts also depends on religious prescriptions. Our
observations suggest that the number of the cuts can be, on average, less than 4
(with a maximum up to 6) but this is based mainly on the Dhabiha method. Multiple
saw movements require the implementation of urgent corrective actions including
practical training of the operators.
It may happen that both carotids are not cut but this should be monitored by the
operator who will take immediate corrective action. In case of repetitive miss-cuts, an
action plan should be implemented.
Impeded flow may be primarily linked to the formation of blood clots, the design of
the device or the post-cut management of the head restraint. The mechanism
underlying the formation of blood clot is not yet fully understood but is related to the
operator practice and the animal. Slaughterhouses are encouraged to monitor the
formation of blood clots. Whatever the case, our observations suggest that it is
possible to reach a frequency of impeded flow of 0% and that a frequency higher than
10% need corrective action plan.
121
122
6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE USE OF THE

DIFFERENT RESTRAINT SYSTEMS FOR SLAUGHTERING BOVINE
ANIMALS WITHOUT STUNNING
Task leader: Willy Baltussen (LEI-WUR)
INTRODUCTION
The goal of this third part of the study was to determine the socio-economic implications of
the different restraint practices for slaughtering bovine animals without stunning with
special attention to:
Economics of slaughtering, competitiveness and trade aspects (imports to and

exports from EU and intra-trade among EU Member States);
Religious expectation and freedom of religion;
Working condition and safety of operators in the bleeding area of the
slaughterhouse.
123
Figure 19 : Research design for socio-economic research

(Source: BoRest study Socio-economic implications)
Table 38 : Assessed indicators per judgement area for the SWOT analysis of different types of
restraining devices for slaughtering bovine animals without stunning
Judgement area
Economic costs
Religious
Acceptability
Work safety
Intra-EU trade and

trade with third
countries
Animal welfare
Assessed indicators
total investment restraining system ()
investment restraining system (% of total investment slaughter line)
maintenance costs ( per year)
total costs ( per year)
lifetime restraining system (years)
line speed (animals per hour)
Requirements for Jewish religion
Requirements for Muslim religion
Religious education slaughterman
Number of accidents in 2012
Frequency of accidents (number per year)
Type of injuries
Impact of injuries
Experience of slaughterman
Education of slaughterman
Origin of meat
Destination of meat
Share cattle slaughtered without stunning (%)
Meat sold as halal/ kosher (% of total)
Duration of introduction in the restraint device, handling and behaviour of the
animals
2. Duration of restraint before the cut and behaviour of the animals
3. Duration of rotation and inverted position and behaviour of the animals
Number of cuts and Quality of bleeding indirectly assessed by presence of blood
clots/impeded flow, presence of signs of consciousness at different time after the
cut
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
124
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The objectives of the socio-economic research were twofold:
1. A comparison between the upright and the rotating restraint system by a SWOT
analyses on the aspects of costs, acceptability by religious representatives, IntraEU
trade of meat and trade of meat with third countries, work safety of the
slaughtermen and animal welfare.
2. Impact of different scenarios of the European policy on the use of the different types
of restraint systems used for bovine animals slaughtered without stunning (adult
cattle and calves) regarding costs, acceptability by religious representatives, intra EUtrade of meat and trade of meat with third countries, work safety of slaughtermen
and animal welfare.
The research is based on data of:
a. Restraint systems used for bovine animals in slaughterhouses in six EU Member
States (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, The United Kingdom)
representing 97% of bovine animals slaughtered without stunning;
b. Stakeholders information collected in 18 slaughterhouses visited and a limited
number of responses from other stakeholders such as manufacturers of slaughterline
system and wholesalers of halal or kosher meat.
The limited number of visits and response per group of stakeholders can be explained by
different reasons. The first reason is that for this project, 25 visits at slaughterhouses were
planned. Some of the slaughterhouses refused to cooperate to measure the animal welfare
of animals slaughtered without stunning. Not all staff members in the slaughterhouse were
willing to have an interview with the researchers. Animal welfare and work safety officers
were not always present in small slaughterhouses and were not always willing to answer the
questions. Others like insurance companies, manufacturers and wholesale traders were
called several times and invited to answer the questions by phone but refused or were not
able to cooperate.
METHOD
The main principle of this socio-economic research was to qualify and if possible to quantify
different scenarios for future policy options in comparison with a baseline scenario. These
scenarios were developed based upon input mainly from interviews with several
stakeholders, meetings with religious representatives and a SWOT analysis of the two types
of restraint system and to a lesser degree from results of other work packages (Figure 19).
125
Table 39 : Research topics in the questionnaires per interviewee

Topics in the questionnaire
Economic Acceptability
costs
by religion
Interviewee
Director of slaughterhouse
Work
safety
Animal
welfarea
Insurance companies
Manufacturers of slaughter line
Animal welfare officer
Work safety officer
Slaughter men
Wholesaler
Meeting with religious authorities

a
Trade
part of the animal welfare indicators have been calculated from the research described in section 5.
Table 40 : Number of responses per stakeholder group
Interviewee
Director of slaughterhouse
Insurance companies
Number of respondents/
meetings
12 respondents
0a
Manufacturers of slaughter line
2 respondents
Animal welfare officer
11 respondents
Work safety officer
8 respondents
Slaughter men
14 respondents
Wholesaler
1 respondent
Jewish religious representativesb
5 meetings
Muslim religious representativesb
5 meetings
This stakeholder group has been approached but is not able to provide such (specific) data
bIn
Italy the meeting with Jewish authorities and in France the meeting with Muslim authorities was declined.
126
To cover the different judgment areas of the scenario i.e. economics, religious acceptability,
work safety, intra-EU trade and trade with third countries and animal welfare indicators
were determined. In Table 38, the assessed indicators are listed per judgement area. Data
have been collected in order to qualify or quantify the different indicators per restraint
systems according to a SWOT analysis. For example, information from the first work
package: description of the current situation has been used to estimate the share of cattle
slaughtered without stunning in the judgement area Trade. Indicators of the economic
costs or work safety have been obtained by interviewees at slaughterhouses carried out
during the visits for assessing the animal welfare indicators or by interviews with others
stakeholders, for example manufacturers of slaughter lines or the religious representatives
by separate meetings. Animal welfare has been assessed by observations in
slaughterhouses. Religious acceptability has been analysed thanks to interviewees of
slaughtermen and meetings with religious representatives.
QUESTIONNAIRES STAKEHOLDERS
For the socio-economic research seven questionnaires (see Annex 8) have been developed
to interview seven groups of stakeholders:
Survey 1:
directors of slaughterhouses,
Survey 2:
slaughtermen,
Survey 3:
animal welfare officer at slaughterhouse,
Survey 4:
work safety officer at slaughterhouse,
Survey 5:
insurance companies,
Survey 6:
manufactures of restraint systems,
Survey 7:
wholesale traders,
To be able to determine the socio-economic implications of the different restraint

procedures, the judgement areas formed the backbone of the questionnaires. All the
questionnaires focused on slaughter without stunning, but post-cut stunning was not
excluded since the main objective of the project is to compare the types of restraint system
used for animals which are conscious at the moment of cutting. Therefore, situations with
post-cut stunning were relevant. But the questionnaires differed per stakeholder group. In
Table 39 an overview of the topics in the questionnaire is given per group of stakeholders.
127
128
Meetings with religious representatives were dedicated to the religious acceptability of the
two different restraint systems. They aimed to collect the set of religious arguments used to
support the refusal or the acceptance of the different restraint systems observed6.
The acceptability of the restraint system have been investigated for the two communities
who perform slaughter without stunning in Europe: the Jewish community and the Muslim
community.
The opinion were collected by interviewing and discussing, in local languages, with religious
representatives during meetings (Table 40).
We have considered the certification bodies to be market actors not religious actors. We
considered as being representative the religious authorities involved in the definition and /or
application of religious directives, and/ or who are regular interlocutor of the Member
States, and /or who are involved in the selection and/or accreditation of the religious
slaughtermen. We have selected them using experts knowledge, using religious sociological
literature and European religious boards advices. Some are state recognized religious body
(such as Executif des Musulmans de Belgique, Consistoire Isralite de France), some are
regional authorities (such as Rabbi of Barcelona of Catalunya).
It should be noticed and we were aware that the opinions of selected religious
representatives may not represent the majority of opinions of the different religious trends.
This also holds for the opinions of other stakeholders, for example the manufacturers and
wholesalers. This is a limit to the findings that could not be avoided for such a limited size
project.
Details about the methodology are given in Annex 9.
PROCESS
The development of the questionnaires went in stages. In spring 2013 a draft version of all
the questionnaires was developed. This draft was discussed during the project team meeting
in April 2013. Based on the comments a second draft was developed and distributed among
the team members. In June 2013 the final questionnaires were distributed among the team
members.
Most questionnaires were face to face interviews. The interviews with manufacturers and
wholesalers have been executed by making an appointment, sending the questionnaire
followed by an interview by phone.
The goal of this study is to assess the current situation and not to reach the acceptance of one or the other
restraining technique.
129
130
Data were collected from June 2013 to March 2014. In total, 48 responses have been
received (Table 40). From insurance companies no response was gathered, while only one
wholesaler in the Netherlands was willing to respond to the questionnaire.
Meetings with religious representatives were held in the period from October 2013 till
March 2014.
SCENARIOS
The last part of the research focused on scenarios. In order to develop these scenarios the
following basic assumptions were set in consultation with DG SANTE and taking into account
results from initial surveys carried out during this project in the different Member States.
Basic assumptions for developing the scenarios were:
In practice a 78% of slaughterhouses use a rotating restraint system (Table 9, p40). On
one hand, a few manufacturers represent more than 50% of market share and, on the
other hand, there are more than 20 different restraining systems mentioned in practice
(see above, Table 14, p58).
There is also a high variation in how frequently a restraint system is used for cutting
bovine animals without stunning. Some slaughterhouse / slaughtermen are more or less
continuously using the system while others only use it during short periods per year
(special events).
From animal welfare experts point of view, based on observations realised in
slaughterhouses, operating procedures appeared to be more important than the system
of restraining bovine animals to ensure animal welfare. In other words different restraint
system may be acceptable if used in the right way by the users and if users are
knowledgeable about animal behaviour, animal welfare and work safety. So scenarios
should emphasize the proper use of a restraint system.
Per scenario indicators are compared with the baseline scenario. Weighting the different
indicators is fairly impossible (i.e. how to weight better animal welfare with religious
acceptability).
Moreover, a PEST (Political, Economic, Social, Technical) analysis was executed to provide a
better understanding of the context of restraining of bovine animals during slaughtering
without stunning.
In socio-economic research we emphasize the internal factors, the pros and cons of restraint
system with a special attention to costs and economic drivers for the different restraint
systems, religious acceptability, work safety of operators and animal welfare. These
indicators were, for the intended scenarios, compared with the baseline scenario (no change
in EU-policy regarding restraining of bovine animals during slaughtering without stunning).
131
Table 41 : Summary of the valuation of indicators to compare upright with rotating restraining
systems
(Source: BoRest study Socio-economic implications-Data: 2013-2014)
JUDGEMENT
AREAS
Economic costs
RESTRAINT SYSTEM FOR BOVINE ANIMALS

(upright versus rotating)
Compared to a rotating system the upright restraint system:
- Is cheaper (50% of the investment cost);
- Has a longer lifetime (30-50 rather than 14-25 years). Lifetime is longer in case the restraint
system is not used full time;
- Needs less maintenance (less than half the maintenance costs).
Next to this, a wide spread of line speed (animals/hour) is observed; it varies from 10 to 80 animals per
hour. The variation is observed for both systems. For both systems the average line speed is 28 to 30
animals per hour.
Conclusions: 1. Restraint systems are neither decisive for the line speed nor for the
slaughter costs per animal if more than 10.000 slaughtering without stunning take
place per year;
2. The upright system is less costly than the rotating restraint system.
Religious
aspects
For the Jewish communities, inverted position was preferred in all cases in comparison to upright
position.
For the Muslim communities, rotating system is often preferred, but the upright position may be
acceptable if correctly adapted and if the slaughterman is experienced.
Work safety
No clear difference is observed between the two restraint systems. There are some minor incidents
reported. In some of these cases slaughtermen were not able to work for a few days.
Intra-EU trade
and trade with
third countries
Few information is available. In some countries most of halal or kosher beef meat is for the home
market and therefore the acceptability will depend on the religious representatives opinion.
Exports of beef meat to Jewish and Muslim Mediterranean countries are low compared to other
countries and vary according to the economic context. Trade figures can change quickly and figures
from the past are not always a good indicator for the future.
Animal Welfare
In slaughterhouses under practical conditions the expected differences between restraint systems
(duration, number of cuts) are not observed (see section 5). Other factors like layout of the bleeding
area, design of the restraint system, organisation of the procedures and skills and capabilities of the
operators have far more impact on animal welfare than the type of restraint system.
For both types of restraint system good and bad examples regarding animal welfare have been
observed. Given the small sample of slaughterhouses no estimates can be given about the state of
animal welfare of the total population of bovine animals slaughtered without pre-stunning.
According to the answers to the questionnaires, incidents with animals are reported only twice. Most
animal welfare officer respondents were not able or refused to report and no difference can be made
between the two systems of restraining.
132
In the Terms of References (n SANCO/2012/10357) no indication was given about the policy
scenarios that should be taken into account. During the first meeting of the steering
committee in January 2013 it was decided that the work package leader would make a
proposal for scenarios to be discussed during the second meeting of the steering committee
in November 2013. Based on this discussion and bilateral contacts between project team
and DG SANCO two scenarios were developed.
After defining the scenarios, an assessment of the impact of scenarios was carried out.
133

Table 42: Total costs (in euro per year) for upright and rotating restraining systems
Type of costs
Total investment costs
Upright restraint
system
Rotating
restraint system
4,300
12,600
1,250
5,000
50,000 euro
100,000 euro
40 years
20 years
1,800
5,100
1,250
2,500
75 euro
75 euro
2.50 euro
2.50 euro
-of which
a. depreciation costs
Total investment
Lifetime a:
b. maintenance costs
(mean costs from questionnaires)
c. interest costs
(5% over half of the investment amount)
Operational costs bleeding areab
Labour cost per hour (3 people working in the
bleeding area for 25 euro per hour)
Per animal (given a line speed of 30 animals per hour)
a
In the calculations mean (rounded) lifetimes of the systems have been used. As such, 40 years for upright
system instead of 30-50 years and 20 years for rotating system instead of 14-25 years.
b
Other operational costs like energy, water, removal of waste are not estimated because they are relatively
low compared to the investment and labour costs.
134
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIFFERENT RESTRAINT SYSTEMS
To meet the first objective of this socio-economic part of the research all the indicators per
judgement area were valued based on the results of questionnaires, interviews and results
of meetings with religious representatives and to a lesser degree from results of other work
packages. As mentioned in Table 40, the number of responses to the questionnaires was
limited (per stakeholder 0 to 14 responses). The consequence is that many of the indicators
are based on scattered information. This makes it difficult to draw straight conclusions for all
the judgement areas.
In Table 41 a summary is given of the SWOT analysis between the upright versus the rotating
restraint system for bovine animals during slaughtering per judgement area (see also Annex
11).
ECONOMIC COSTS
Upright restraint systems are systematically cheaper than the rotating ones on all aspects:
investment, maintenance and lifetime (Table 42). The total costs for an upright restraint
system are estimated at about 4,300 euro per year (investment of 50,000 euro and annual
costs of 8.6%) and for a rotating restraint system at 12,600 euro (investment of 100,000 euro
and 12.6% annual costs). So the rotating system is 2 to 3 times as expensive as the upright
system. However it should be remembered that costs in the bleeding area are only a small
part of the total slaughtering costs. For example, rotating restraint system investment
represent less than 7% of the investment cost for the total slaughter line (excluding cold
storage room) according to one of our respondent. According to other respondents, labour
cost represents more than half of the cost of slaughtering. Also FCEC (2007) concludes that
The cost of stunning and killing is not seen as being significant (in the context of the
competitive position of the EU cattle and sheep sector).
The line speed in number of animals slaughtered per hour differed between
slaughterhouses. For example, within the slaughterhouses visited, it varied from 10 to 48
adult bovine animals per hour and from 12 to 80 calves per hour (Table 16, p64) and the line
speed did not differ between the upright and rotating system. In both cases, on average,
about 28 to 30 animals were slaughtered per hour. The actual line speed at a specific
slaughterhouse has a far bigger impact on the cost per slaughtered animals than the type of
restraint system.
135

Table 43: Costs per animal in the restraining area for upright and rotating systems for different line
speeds
Line speed (number of animals per hour)

labour costs per animal
investment costs
Upright
Rotating
10
7.5
30
2.5
50
1.5
4,300
12,600
4,300
12,600
4,300
12,600
7.93
8.76
2.93
3.76
1.93
2.76
costs restraining area per animal (euro per

animal)
Upright
Rotating
Own calculations based on questionnaires in this study
Table 44: Costs per animal in the restraining area for upright and rotating systems for different
quantities of annual slaughterings (in euro)
Number of animals slaughtering per year
1000
labour costs (euro per animal)

investment costs (annual costs)
Upright
Rotating
10,000
45,000
2,5
2,5
2,5
4,300
12,600
4,300
12,600
4,300
12,600
6.80
15.10
2.93
3.76
2.60
2.78
costs per animal (in euro per animal)

Upright
Rotating
Own calculations based on questionnaires in this study
136
In Table 43 the costs per animal slaughtered have been calculated for three different line
speeds: 10, 30 and 50 animals per hour. The costs in the bleeding area per animal vary from
almost 8 euro to 2 euro for line speeds of, respectively, 10 and 50 animals per hour. The
cost difference between the upright and rotating systems is 83 eurocents. Other factors like
organisation of the work in the bleeding area are more decisive for the line speed than the
type of restraint system.
Also the number of animals slaughtered per year has a huge impact on the costs per animal
slaughtered (Table 44). The cost per animal slaughtered varies from almost 7 euro per
animal for 1000 animals slaughtered per year in an upright system to 2.60 per animal if
45,000 animals are slaughtered. For the rotating systems these figures are 15 euro and 2.80
euro per animal. The calculations in Tables 43 and 44 also explain why slaughterhouse
managers mention total slaughter costs between 25 and 100 euro per animal. The difference
in slaughter costs per animal can be explained by:
a.
b.
c.
d.
The lack of definition of slaughter costs. This depends on whether the slaughtering
includes cooling / freezing;
The line speed (see the calculations in table 43);
The number of animals slaughtered per year or the size of the batch (see calculations
in table 44);
The variability of labour costs vary between Member States from less than 4 euro per
hour in Bulgaria to more than 40 euro per hour in Sweden.
(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Wages_and_labou
r_costs )
The slaughterhouse managers also stated that the slaughtering of animals without stunning
in total costs 10 to 15% more than slaughtering of animals with pre-stunning.
According to slaughterhouse managers investment decision regarding restraint systems are
guided by four criteria, by order of priority:
1. religious requirements;
2. total investment of the restraint system;
3. work safety of people working in the bleeding area;
4. animal welfare.
Taking into account that upright system are compulsory in the UK, no difference could be
observed in priority between the upright and rotating restraint systems.
137
138
RELIGIOUS ASPECTS
For the Jewish communities, inverted position was preferred in all the cases in comparison
to upright position. However, the UK Jewish representatives believed that the slaughter with
an inverted position could be improved.
The preference of the Jewish clerics for an inverted position was supported by religious
requirements such as "Derasah", i.e. the Jewish slaughterman (Schochet) must not apply
pressure with the knife at the throat of the animals and "Halada" i.e. the knife must be
visible and not be buried by fur.
For the Muslim communities, a rotating device is often preferred, but the upright position
may be acceptable if correctly adapted and if the slaughterman is experienced. All
interviewees emphasized that the efficiency of the cut is the main objective. Full rotation
was not strictly approved by some representatives interviewed. From their point of view, an
angle should be respected imitating the laying of the animal on his (left) side.
At last, a good head restraint, that keeps the head of the bovine animal in a fixed position
without hurting the animal, is a concern for most of our interlocutors in terms of welfare,
bleeding efficiency and practices regardless of the final position of the bovine animals.
However, it should be borne in mind that the opinions were given on the basis of two ideal
scenarios (in video) of Dhabiha cut (for the production of halal meat). No video of Shechita
cut (for the production of kosher meat) was available due to limitation from slaughterhouses
which does not allow to record and show videos. Some of our interlocutors knew little about
the way slaughtering of bovine animals is routinely performed.
Furthermore, there is a high degree of distrust between the operators and religious
authorities, in particular regarding the question of stunning. Despite that we excluded it
from the present study, the issue of stunning, and its political framing was in the mind of the
religious authorities interviewed. Some were reluctant to give an official statement on this
aspect of religious slaughter considering that this statement could have an impact later on
the legal framework and indirectly on stunning (in The Netherlands, France, Italy).
139
140
WORK SAFETY
The Work safety officers report almost no incidents. One work safety officer reported in
total two incidents in one slaughterhouse. Two recommendations were given by the work
safety officers regarding the work safety of people working in the bleeding area:
1. Allow post-cut stun if possible;
2. Increase the available working space for the slaughter man.
With one exception all slaughtermen interviewed answered that they have less than 1
incident per year. One slaughterman reported 1 to 5 incidents per year. Reported incidents
are mainly cuts and all the slaughtermen were still able to continue working. No differences
can be seen between upright and rotating systems. Also no difference exists between
slaughtermen cutting according the Jewish rites and slaughtermen cutting according the
Muslim rites (the number of observations are however limited). Slaughtermen indicate that
they see no possibility to increase work safety by changing the restraint system.
We also tried to estimate the working conditions of the slaughtermen but there were clear
limitations in the answers because they are generally only familiar with one system (upright
or rotating). The working conditions for slaughtermen was rated 2.3 for physical conditions
and 2.9 for mental conditions by the slaughtermen themselves on a scale from 1 (no stress)
to 5 (stressful). No comparison can be made between the two restraining systems because
only two observations are available for the upright restraint system. The level of education
of slaughtermen was mostly basic or middle, about 20% was highly educated. No clear
differences can be found between the restraint systems.
Work safety plays an important role in the decision of slaughterhouse managers to choose a
restraint system. They rank work safety as third after total investment. They see the hoisting
of the animal as the most dangerous task in the bleeding area compared to other tasks like
entering the animal in the restraint system, restrain the animal, cut the animal and
release the animal from the restraint system.
These data do not allow to draw a firm conclusion on the effect of the position during the
cut but they suggest that the restraint system per se is not a major concern regarding work
safety. The major risks in terms of work safety are indeed linked to the unexpected
movements of the animals after releasing them from the restraint system and while hoisting.
This risk increases if the space for the slaughterman to perform the cut is restricted and/or
the area is poorly designed. So the layout of the bleeding area is probably more relevant in
terms of work safety than the type of restraint system.
141
142
INTRA-EU TRADE AND TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES

Neither Eurostat statistics on trade in meat nor national statistics offer any information on
intra-EU trade and trade with third countries in halal and kosher meat. An additional
statistical problem is that part of the meat slaughtered according to religious prescription is
sold on the secular market.
In the European Union, the percentage of adult bovines and calves slaughtered without
stunning (2012) varies a lot between 1% in Italy to 24% in France according to data provided
by competent authorities. In the Netherlands, most of the halal beef meat is for the Dutch
market (85%), the rest goes mainly as halal meat to other EU countries. In the case of kosher
slaughtering only the forequarter is used by the Jewish community. The hindquarter is sold
on the secular market. As such, the Jewish community uses only a part of the carcass due to
religious reasons whereas the Islamic community can use the whole carcass. Meat not sold
on the local market is mainly sold as halal or kosher meat in other EU countries. For
example, we have been informed of flows of halal meat from Ireland, the United Kingdom
and Eastern countries to France.
Based on Eurostat data 2009-2103, exports of beef meat from EU to third countries
predominantly Muslim or Jewish around the Mediterranean sea are very low (in most years
less than 15, 000 tonnes carcass weight) compared to the overall export of beef from the EU
to third countries (138,000 and 400,000 tonnes per year). The export to Muslim neighbour
countries like Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Egypt and Libya varies from 4,500 to
14,200 tonnes in 2009-2013. The export to Turkey increases from 300 tonnes in 2009 to
112.000 tonnes in 2011 and decrease to 300 tonnes in 2013. Exports from EU to Israel is also
low (about 200 to 280 tonnes annually). The export figures to Turkey shows that trade
between EU and third countries can change quickly (in positive and negative way). This
makes it difficult to use figures from the past to estimate the future trade.
These data suggest that, even if it is important for the EU industry to be present in these
countries, other factors than the restraint system will impact much more the international
competitiveness. However, although the total amount is low, we were said by some
slaughterhouses that it is an important market for them as individual companies. Therefore,
taken into account the opinion of Jewish representatives, it may be important that restraint
systems by inversion can still be used in the future.
143
144
ANIMAL WELFARE
In spite of many attempts in different countries to visit slaughterhouses that were using
upright restraint system, it shall be noticed that only 3 groups of animals outside the UK
were assessed.
The results obtained during the visits in slaughterhouse suggest that:
- handling and operating procedure will primarily affect animal welfare. Differences in
duration of restraint between upright and inverted position are rather limited. Operating
procedure may vary a lot from one slaughterhouse to another;
- poor designed system (rotating or upright) will also have a detrimental effect.
Regarding the system used in slaughterhouses, based on data collected in section 4, it should
be noticed that France represents almost 59% of the bovine animals slaughtered without
stunning (2012) and that rotating system used in France come from a small number of
manufacturers (three of them have 80% of the market in our survey) who all produce the
same kind of modern rotating system (Facomia like). Among the other manufacturers, we
also know that, at least, three or four of them which are specialised in slaughterhouse
system are also producing the same kind of system. Consequently, probably more than 90%
of the French slaughterhouses are equipped with modern designed rotating system,
independently of the size of the slaughterhouses.
These systems are also used in other countries like The Netherlands, Spain and Belgium in
our sample. Altogether these four countries represent more than 85% of the bovine animals
slaughtered without stunning in the EU. Consequently, if we assume that, on average, the
proportion of the different system used is the same in these countries as observed in France,
we can first hypothesize that, at least, more than 75% of the bovine animals are slaughtered
in the EU by using this modern rotating restraint system that are supposed to be welldesigned. Finally, by adding other countries (Italy, Ireland), we can estimate, with a relative
high probability, that more than 80% of the animals are slaughtered in these conditions. This
assumption is also coherent with the fact that, according to our result, 67% of the
slaughterhouses are equipped with restraint system of less than 10 years old and that less
than 15% of the slaughterhouses had invested in restraint system before 1990.
145
146
Regarding the use of upright systems, we should distinguish between UK which represents
approximately one third of the animal slaughtered in upright position and the other
countries. In UK, restraint systems used are submitted to an agreement by the Minister and
are based on ASPCA design. Then it can be hypothesized that the restraint system used
already fulfils minimum requirements. In other countries, different cases can be
encountered, from the use of modern rotating devices used in upright position to the use of
simple concrete systems which may be considered as poorly designed (e.g. those we
observed during the visits in slaughterhouses). However, due to the limitations induced to
line speed by such system and based on the answers to the questionnaire of the
slaughterhouses survey, it is expected that this kind of systems are present in a small
number of slaughterhouses which are slaughtering few animals, less than 1000 per year (and
probably limited to some hundreds - see also section 4 and 5 for example in Italy).
Consequently, even if our data do not allow having an exhaustive view, we do not expect
that animals slaughtered in poorly designed restraint, represent a high number of animals in
Europe. Maybe, this accounts for a maximum of 1 to 3% of the bovine animals slaughtered in
5 to 10% of the slaughterhouses. In terms of number of slaughterhouses, it is probably the
use of rudimentary upright system in very small slaughterhouses that constitutes a major
risk factor.
However, as we underlined previously, whatever the restraint system used, handling of the
animals and, more generally speaking, poor operating procedure, are the major risk factors.
Based on our experience, part of the problems encountered can be solved by the
management of operators and the implementation of improved operating procedures. For
instance, duration in inverted position, cut (number, position, ), minimum duration of
restraint after the cut could be addressed rather easily by defining precise objectives, by
training and by monitoring. Others, like handling of the animals at the entry of the system or
assessment of loss of consciousness, are more difficult to address because they are
depending on the animals (including previous handling), the design in particular the layout of
the corridor and the restraint system, the skill of the operators, the procedure and, finally,
the current state of knowledge available. During the last five years, research has been
stimulated by the new regulation and has allowed identifying some of the key issues.
Implementation of the regulation is an ongoing process that is progressively and diversely
disseminating the first results of the research depending of the Member States. Therefore
we can consider that only a few slaughterhouses in the EU have already addressed most of
the risks. In some Member States (e.g. United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands),
national specific rules or industry commitment may have speeded up the process but, even
in these countries, some issues still remain.
147
148
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The results may be surprising on some points as it appears that rotating restraint systems
are more expensive without obvious advantages on line speed, work safety or animal
welfare which are three of the main drivers for the slaughterhouses management. However,
rotating systems are the most familiar restraint systems within the EU (see Section 4).
To interpret these results, it is necessary to take into account what happened during the last
30 years (see also Section 3). In France, the first design of the modern rotating system was
introduced by Facomia in 1979. At this time, it differed from the Weinberg pen which was
observed by Dun et al. (1990) by the introduction of a back door, a back pusher and
hydraulic restraint system. This initial design was progressively refined during the following
years with success and progressively adopted by the main manufacturers of slaughterhouse
system (Warin-Ramette, 2010).
At the same time, from the religious representatives point of view and in particular from the
Jewish community, there was a strong requirement to carry out the slaughtering not in
upright position, but in the same way as traditional slaughtering in Jewish and Muslim
communities. In France, furthermore, one of the main non-governmental animal welfare
organisation encouraged also slaughterhouses to use this rotating restraint system. In this
context, following the adoption of Directive 93/119/EC, it was observed a generalization of
the use of mechanical modern rotating restraint system for religious slaughtered bovine
animals with a speed up before the new regulation was adopted. The French situation may
probably also apply to other Member States where rotating restraint systems are permitted.
During the same period, in the United Kingdom, the adoption of the same EC Directive
induced a development in an opposite direction. Following several reports and
recommendations from the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) that emphasized the
advantage of ASPCA design of upright restraint system compared with the Weinberg system,
the British government finally banned the rotating system.
Results obtained should be therefore interpreted in these two divergent contexts. Also it
should be taken into account that the lay out of the bleeding area and the operating
procedure have been progressively optimised over the last 30 years for the use of either a
rotating system or an upright one. The background was different and most of the answers
from food business operators need to be interpreted within a category of restraint systems.
Therefore, for most of the directors of the slaughterhouse, comparisons are made within a
category of restraint systems.
149
150
In conclusion, religious expectation is the main driver for the choice of rotating system and
inverted or lateral position at the time of the cut. Consequently, during the last 30 years,
except in the United Kingdom, most of the slaughterhouses in the EU have invested in a
rotating system and have optimised the procedures accordingly.
Upright systems are less costly than rotating ones but the investment and cost linked to the
bleeding area is low compared to overall investment in a slaughter line or compared to the
labour cost in a slaughterhouse.
The choice of the restraint system has a minor impact on competitiveness of the European
slaughterhouses compared to main exporting countries of meat of bovine animals cut
without stunning.
Where using modern systems, work safety is more linked to the layout of bleeding and
hoisting area than to the design of the restraint system.
Available data from this study indicate that no more than 1 to 3% of the bovine animals are
slaughtered within restrain systems that have a bad design. Given these figures a poor
design of the restraining system has a quantitative limited effect on animal welfare
compared to non-optimised operating procedures. But in this last case, the impact of the ongoing implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 need to be further investigated in
the next years.
151

Table 45: Result of a PEST analysis regarding restraint of bovine animals during slaughtering
without stunning
(Source: BoRest study Socio-economic implications-Data: 2014)
PEST analysis: Starting position for the purpose of all scenarios

Political
There will be continuous opposition from animal welfare organizations to the slaughter of bovine animals without stunning.
Opinion regarding rotating bovine animals before cutting depends on organization and their experience in the field. These
opinions do not result in a lively societal discussion on the subject as long as restraint in itself is performed.
For halal, ongoing debates about the acceptability of pre or post-cut stunning or thoracic sticking after the cut may result in
national regulation or local agreements with slaughterhouses but it is not expected to become a European policy.
At an international level OIE standards (http://www.oie.int/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-key-themes/) on animal welfare may
be refined due to ongoing concern in some parts of the world. But, so far, advantages and disadvantages of the different
restraining systems are still under discussion and, whatever the case, implementing restraining procedures is the priority.
Economic
The number of locations for slaughter will decrease. Especially small regional slaughterhouses will close down in e.g. France,
Spain and Italy. Currently slaughter of bovine animals without stunning takes place in many of these small slaughterhouses. As a
consequence the number of slaughtered bovine animals without stunning per slaughterhouse will increase and, extremely,
some slaughterhouses may specialise in slaughtering without stunning depending on the social acceptability of such an
evolution. The current number of 434 slaughterhouses slaughtering bovine animals without stunning is expected to decrease till
300. This expectation is based on expert knowledge.
No major change is envisaged in the export of meat of slaughtered bovine animals without stunning. Export increased
significantly to the Middle East in recent years but also strongly fluctuates at a low level; export figures show that trade can
change quickly Iin both positive and negative way. It is known that export to these countries vary quickly and significantly
according to the economic conditions.
Social
The Muslim population in the EU will grow (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPRURDEV/Resources/CedomirNestorovic.pdf From this follows an increased demand for halal meat. In Halal Food Market in Europe 2014-2018 (May 2014)
the growth of the Halal Food market in Europe is supported by several drivers, one of which is an increase in the Muslim
population in Europe, especially in Russia. Consumption of halal food products is directly proportional to the Muslim population.
The high standard of living in Europe is another major driver of the market. Another factor influencing the demand of halal meat
is the acceptability of stunning by the Muslim Community. We assumed that for the next 15 years the acceptability, in
particular pre-cut stun, will not change.
Both types of restraining systems (upright and rotating devices) will be used in the EU. However, the general expectation is that
the proportion will undergo an alteration. So far, it is highly unpredictable in some cases, for example in France, where different
trends are observed (upright to inverted, inverted to lateral recumbence and inverted to upright) while a shift is estimated from
inverted to upright in other countries (e.g. the Netherlands). These processes go slowly because the lifetime of restraining
devices is at least 15 years (daily use and rotating) or much longer (incidental use and/or the upright system). It depends also on
the type of animals (adult cattle vs. calves).
No major change is envisaged in the pattern of numbers of slaughtered animals during a year. A certain basic level will be
performed throughout the year with additional peaks just before certain religious celebrations.
Technological
The basic upright and rotating systems will remain. There will be no radical change in restraining system used. Existing systems
will be gradually improved (more use of oil pressure; ....).
The cutting and slaughtering of bovine animals will remain to be performed by human beings; technique will not be a substitute
in this matter.
152
SCENARIOS FOR IMPLEMENTING TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Relevant for the development of the scenarios and the PEST analysis is the period which has
to be taken into consideration. For this, we took the minimum period for the depreciation of
restraint system. Therefore we allowed for a horizon of 15 years. A PEST analysis based on
expert judgement for this period has been executed. A PEST analysis identifies the
underlying trends which have an impact on the development of restraint systems for
slaughtering bovine animals without stunning. This gives a better understanding of the
context of restraining of bovine animals during slaughtering without stunning and results in
a starting position for all scenarios. The main findings of the PEST analysis are presented in
Table 45.
For the socio-economic impact assessment, three scenarios were defined and are discussed
below.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENARIOS

SCENARIO 1: BASELINE - NO CHANGE IN EU POLICY
This scenario means no policy change at EU level regarding slaughter without stunning and
with the use of the different restraint systems. Present EU policies regarding restraining
bovine animals during slaughter without stunning will remain the same for the next 15 years.
However, due to the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, business operators
will adopt standard operating procedures and may refine them based on national Guides to
Good Practices, national specific requirements or European guidelines. This may change
practices. The Food and Veterinarian Office, for example, audited EU regulation in several
Member States (The Netherlands in 2006 (2006-8041), France (2007-7330), The United
Kingdom (2007-7337), Italy (2008-7691), Spain (2012-6373) and Estonia (2013-6825)). Their
comments aim at improving processes within the bleeding area, and not so much the system
itself.
We take an annually growth of the number of animals slaughtered without stunning (+1%)
for granted. We expect 80% of animals will be slaughtered by 20% of the slaughterhouses
(from now on: large slaughterhouses). The other 20% of the animals will be processed by the
other 80% of the slaughterhouses (from now on: small slaughterhouses). This also applies for
scenario 2 and 3.
153
154
In addition to this, we assume in each country, where slaughtering without stunning is

allowed, half of the larger slaughterhouses will actively implement standard operating
procedures excluding France. For France we expect that all small and big slaughterhouses
participate in the existing voluntary program (also officially recognised by the competent
authority) to improve the standard operating procedures and to train and to educate all
operators.
SCENARIO 2: NON-BINDING SUPPORT MEASURES
In this scenario the EU will initiate non-binding support measures to improve the quality of
slaughtering in terms of animal welfare and work safety.
In this scenario the Commission would design and implement the following support
measures specifically aimed at restraining bovine animals when they are slaughtered
without stunning:
1) Development and implementation of templates for improved standard operating
procedures;
2) Design and dissemination of educational and training materials in several EU
languages;
3) Provide technical recommendations on restraint systems as a prerequisite for the
derogation from the obligation to stun animals before slaughter;
4) Realisation of technical studies to refine existing systems and processes.
Improved standard operating procedures, including management of emergency situations,
will be developed with EU financial support. Such procedures include, for example,
additional requirements and objectives on the duration of each step of the slaughtering
process and indicators for the monitoring of animal welfare (see the recommendations of
Section 5). These procedures could be drafted on the basis of output of the present study,
existing Guides to Good Practices and scientific opinions. This measure will also include
translation/dissemination of the templates of the improved procedures. These improved
operating procedures can be used as a basis for deepening the training of slaughtermen,
animal welfare officers, work safety officers and veterinary services.
Based on the first results of the assessment of animal welfare in this study and project team
discussions, some basics of these improved operating procedure are described in Annex 10.
155
156
In this scenario the design and dissemination of educational and training materials in
several EU languages will be supported by the EU. Because training is compulsory and should
have been performed already (in 2013 or in 2015 depending on previous experience of
slaughtermen), these training materials can be used to deepen and update the practical skill
of the operators compared with training requirements for the certificate of competence. For
example, in France, all operators shall be trained every 5 years in order to keep their
knowledge and skill up to date and this can take place during the next session. Training
materials could be designed for animal welfare officers as well as for slaughtermen, making
educational supports adapted to the audience (more theoretical for animal welfare officers,
more practical and interactive for slaughtermen) and inciting interactions between them.
Besides the aforementioned measures technical recommendations on restraint systems
could be provided by the EU as prerequisite for the derogation from stunning animals or for
the improved standard operating procedures. These recommendations would be addressed
to the competent authorities of the Member States who are responsible for granting and
checking the implementation of the derogation from stunning animals.
Such technical recommendations could improve animal welfare and work safety and could
emphasize, for example, the need of:
1. A visual system to monitor the duration of the different steps of the process;
2. Recommendation for the layout of the entrance into the restraint system;
3. Organisation of the bleeding area with particular attention paid to the possibility of the
operator to monitor (directly or at least by the use of optical system) the behaviour of
the animals during restraining and to be in the best position for doing the cut and
monitoring the bleeding.
4. Mobile front of the system to access the head of the animal when the animal falls down;
5. Stun system for emergency cases.
These different pieces of equipment may also be considered as prerequisite for the
implementation of high-level animal welfare standard operating procedures in application of
the Annex II point 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009.
Finally, this scenario could also include a series of technical studies to refine existing
systems and processes, such as systems to monitor pressure, to reduce noise and to develop
new designs of chin-lift and head-restraint system for different categories of animals. Such
studies would apply to both upright and rotating restraint system.
The feasibility of this scenario is relatively high. There are expectations from this study that
improving the procedure in the bleeding area will improve animal welfare and work safety of
the people.
157
158
Even though further research is still needed, some good practices can already be
implemented rather easily. From the answers of the stakeholders it can be concluded that
work safety and animal welfare are two important aspects regarding the restraining of
animals during slaughtering. Because scenario 2 is voluntary, the support of almost all
stakeholders is needed to get the maximum impact. Therefore one of the key elements
could be to draw a clear and stable perspective that could help to enhance trust between
stakeholders. It is also important that this approach is implemented, taking into account the
different initial contexts in order to provide slaughterhouses the maximum added value. It
means that a gap analysis between recommendations and local situations is probably
needed and that training should be adapted to the national context.
This scenario means a policy change at EU level and therefore some additional budgets for
implementing this scenario are required in order to maximise the participation of
stakeholders. First estimates show a total amount of 1 million Euros7.
Finally, we assume that in each country, where slaughtering without stunning is allowed, all
large slaughterhouses will join this scenario plus half of the small ones. In addition to this,
we have made the calculations without taking France into consideration because this
scenario is already implemented in France through the national guideline and training
program that we assume it can also be updated according to new scientific evidence.
SCENARIO 3: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTRAINT DEVICE
In this scenario the Commission will prepare a legislative proposal for further mandatory
minimum requirements for restraint systems used for bovine animals in the context of
slaughter without stunning. This means upright and rotating restraint systems will continue
to be allowed but additional minimum requirements will have to be met. Eventually this
would possibly lead to phasing out unacceptable systems over time in the EU or adaptation
of these systems.
Based on following assumptions made: 400,000 euro for developing and disseminating
of templates for standard operation procedures and the training and educational
materials in the EU (without France) and 600,000 euro for additional research.
159
160
Requirements regarding restraint systems may be included in point 3 of the Annex II of the
Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009. For example, a point 3.3 may be added, dedicated to the
restraint system used for slaughtering bovine animals according to Article 4: the system
shall be designed in order to minimize restraint duration in particular to carry out a smooth
quick rotation according to best practices available, allow a visual monitoring of animals
behaviour during restraint and bleeding, allow a secure access to the head of the animals in
case of emergency, .... In this way the requirements become compulsory for
slaughterhouses performing slaughter without stunning.
The consequences of the implementation of this scenario should be further checked. Annex
II of the Regulation can be adapted if there is scientific or technical progress and after an
advice from EFSA to do so (see Article 14.3). The same holds for Annex III of the Regulation
(see Article 15. 4). By following the procedures in Article 25 adaptations can be implemented
through the comitology procedure.
Finally, we assume that in each country 5 10% of the smaller slaughterhouses will be
impacted by this scenario. For these slaughterhouses, we assumed that they will cease
production instead of investing in a new restraint system.
161
162
ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS
The impact assessment per scenario is structured in the same way as the comparison of the
upright and rotating restraint system: economic aspects, religious aspects, work safety,
intra-EU trade and trade with third countries and animal welfare.
SCENARIO 1: BASELINE
Economic costs
As described in the PEST analysis, it is expected that the number of bovine animals
slaughtered without stunning will increase slightly in the EU, mainly because the Muslim
population is expected to grow. In addition to this, Research and Markets (2014) forecasts
the European halal food market to grow annually with about 2% between 2013 and 2018.
We assumed a growth of 16% between 2014 and 2029 for the number of bovine animals
slaughtered without stunning.
434 slaughterhouses were allowed to perform slaughtering without pre-stunning in the EU
in 2012. Not all of these were operational or actually performing slaughter without stunning
For example, approximately 40 were not operational in Italy and the United Kingdom
according to partners.
Furthermore, in France, almost one third of slaughterhouses were closed between 2002 and
2010 (Ravaux, 2011). These data should be interpreted with caution because several factors
are at play (for instance, food safety, territorial development and strong interest in local
food supply chain, transport, regional and national legislation) and because it was a nonlinear trend. Yet, this trend probably also occurs in other countries, particularly where there
are large numbers of small slaughterhouses (e.g. Italy, Spain). On the other hand, slaughter
without stunning may rise in other countries, for instance in Eastern Europe. However, the
numbers in these countries were very low in 2012 and even a doubling would not
significantly affect the overall results of the scenarios.
Altogether, it is expected that in 15 years there will be an overall decrease from 434 to 3008
slaughterhouses which are allowed to perform slaughter without stunning of bovine animals
with the closure of smaller, financially unviable, slaughterhouses.. This means also a
significant increase in the number of bovines slaughtered per slaughterhouse.
All calculations in this section are based on the last year of the scope of this analysis,
the 15th year.
163
164
As follows from table 44 slaughtering costs per animal will decline if the total number of
bovine animals slaughtered increases.
With respect to variation in annual number of animals slaughtered without stunning in
slaughterhouses we expect the most inefficient slaughterhouses with low line speed to close
down, as they will experience difficulties in maintaining economical viable production (high
costs and low numbers of animal slaughtered). However, some of these small regional
slaughterhouses could survive by concentrating their activities on seasonal peak times and
religious festivals where demand for halal and kosher meat is higher and customers are
willing to pay higher prices.
Given the long lifespan of restraint system (14 to 25 years for rotating systems and 30 to 50
years for upright systems) and because of recent investments in slaughterhouses (see Figure
12, p54), no big shifts are expected in this system in slaughterhouses compared with the
data reported in Section 4. In case of replacement, the choice of the type of system will be
influenced by national regulations (for example, the ban on rotating systems in the United
Kingdom) and religious acceptability. Within a certain type of restraint system,
slaughterhouse managers look at total investment cost, commercial relations with the
manufacturer, animal welfare and work safety for the selection of a certain system.
To conclude on economic costs, due to the overall structural evolution towards bigger
slaughterhouses, and therefore economies of scale, economic costs related to slaughter
without stunning bovine animals are likely to decrease, whatever the restraining system
considered.
Religious aspects
Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 respects freedom of religion through a derogation from
stunning animals.
Regarding the religious expectations in terms of the restraint system, the results of the
interviews show that Jewish religious representatives prefer to continue their interpretation
of the rites i.e. inverted position is strongly recommended. The opinion of Muslim
representatives is less firm and may evolve as it appears today that some of them think that
bovine animals should be restrained in lateral recumbency on the left side. Even if they are
more flexible, this interpretation will promote the use of rotating restraint systems.
However, it should be taken into account, that in most countries, there are recurrent
concerns about stunning or labelling. This may also have a technical impact. For example,
post-cut stunning favours restraining in an upright or lateral position. These topics were not
in the scope of this study but may impact future decisions on the choice of the restraint
system.
165
166
In the overall, we do not expect major changes in the religious expectations which could
substantially affect the type of restraining systems for cattle.
Work safety
In the baseline scenario the present EU policy regarding restraint bovine animals during
slaughter without stunning will remain. This research shows that work safety plays an
important role in the decision for slaughterhouse managers to choose a restraint system.
Findings of this research also show that regarding the system which is currently in use, only a
few incidents are reported with minor impacts for the health of slaughter men they were
still able to continue working. In addition, based on the data provided, no clear difference
between the two types of system has been identified regarding their work safety
performances. Moreover and as we mentioned earlier, according to respondents to our
study, the main risk for workers is the hoisting of the animals. Taken into account that the
implementation of the new regulation will generalize the obligation of checking
unconsciousness before releasing the animals from restraint, we can expect fewer incidents
in relation with struggling, for example, in this area.
Compulsory training will also help to improve the skills of the slaughtermen in particular
regarding their ability to better analyse and anticipate the behaviour of the bovine animals.
This will normally lead to reduced work safety risks.
Altogether, it is assumed that an improvement of work safety will happen in this scenario
even if it is not possible to quantify the decrease of risk of incidents nor the severity of
incidents.
Intra-EU trade and trade with third countries
No specific developments are expected for the baseline scenario. Intra-EU trade and trade
with third countries in halal and kosher meat are both small and there are no signs that
these trade volumes will change significantly in the near future. Moreover, the risk of
banning slaughter without stunning in the main countries (France, the Netherlands, Spain,
UK and Belgium) is negligible. A significant shift in production and/or trade flows within EU is
not foreseen because the majority of production is for local markets.
The cost of slaughtering depends mainly on line speed and labour costs. Restraint systems
are only a minor part of the total capital investment and of the total slaughter costs for
bovine animals. Based on our results in Section 5, the restraint system has also a minor
effect on line speed because most time is spent in handling the animals and not in
restraining them before the cut.
Therefore, the competiveness of slaughterhouses will depend on other factors than the
restraint system.
167
168
Animal welfare
Due to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, standard operating procedures (including emergency
plans) will be implemented in slaughterhouses.
Where slaughter without stunning is allowed, we have identified 3 cases: countries without
any additional conditions, countries where specific conditions are in force and countries
where a post-cut stun is compulsory. However, authorization with specific conditions applies
to almost all the main countries. Therefore we do not expect in the next years a ban on
upright or rotating restraint systems.
Implementation of standard operating procedures may vary significantly between countries.
In France, for example, standard operating procedures should be based on the national
Guide to Good Practices which was primarily designed by the industry with the support of
scientists, then reviewed by the Ministry and by the French food safety authority before
being officially recognised. Animal welfare organizations and representatives from religious
communities were also consulted. Finally the guide was endorsed by all the stakeholders and
each slaughterhouse should refer to it when implementing its own standard operating
procedures. The certificate of competence is given to the different operators based on
training and their knowledge of the national guide to good practice.
In the UK and the Netherlands, on the other hand, the competent authorities have adopted
some legal requirements, but each slaughterhouse is required to individually and separately
implement its own standard operating procedures. There currently appears to be a general
reluctance in these countries to enter into a process of jointly designing guidelines.
In Spain, the situation differs between regions (Comunidades Autnomas), but in general,
and especially in high-capacity slaughterhouses, veterinary officials ensure that operators do
not keep the animals in the restraint system for too long. Some slaughterhouses manage the
situation by introducing a waiting area of hoisted animals already (or almost) dead, so as not
to affect line speed. In other cases, they apply post-cut stunning. So, although restraining is
being included in the standard operating procedures of each slaughterhouse, there is no
uniformity and little communication between slaughterhouses to harmonize minimum
requirements.
Lastly, in Italy there is a wide variety of approved systems and rules due to the fact that the
responsibility is assumed by numerous local authorities who have different interpretations
of the regulation. The national reference centre for animal welfare just published a guideline
for the implementation of the Regulation (June 2014). Training, however, is carried out by a
single institution and dedicated to selected personnel from the competent authority. The
limited number of personnel trained may slower the dissemination of good practices in Italy.
169
170
France represents almost 60% of all bovine slaughter without stunning in the EU (see
competent authorities survey-2012). Therefore, the progressive dissemination of the
Guide to Good Practices and implementation of standard operating procedures will have a
significant impact on bovine animals welfare. It is also expected that the Guide to Good
Practices will be continuously updated to include new technical and scientific developments.
So far, some major requirements (e.g. duration of restraint after the cut) have already been
implemented in most slaughterhouses. All slaughtermen involved in slaughter without
stunning have undergone training since the end of 2013 and they should be retrained every
5 years.
In other countries, some additional legal requirements will have the same effect, for
example in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands and Spain. The situation may however be
slightly different from France because it seems that there is limited trust between the
different stakeholders and reluctance to collaborate in certain cases.
On the basis of these developments, we may expect that a significant part of the bovine
animals slaughtered without stunning in the EU will benefit from improved standard
operating procedures over the next 15 years. Of the 2,400,000 bovine animals slaughtered
without stunning in 2029, it is therefore expected that 1,600,000 animals (or 64% of the
animals) will benefit from improved standard operating procedures related to the
implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009).
However, even though improvements in animal welfare may be expected, there are some
limitations:
The impact of improved standard operating procedures on animal welfare will

depend on the targets stated therein (e.g. threshold for monitoring, duration of
restraint);
Research is still needed to improve the handling of the animals at the entrance of the
restraint device or to better understand the factors that affect loss of consciousness
after the cut.
There may be a lack of harmonization between countries as is presently the case for
the restraint system. For example, the Italian guideline allows the use of rope for
head restraint when the body of the animal is mechanically immobilized. On the
contrary, the use of rope is forbidden in France.
There may be a focus on some part of the process (for example restraint duration
after the cut) and less attention paid to restraint in itself.
Some difficulties may appear because of distrust between the stakeholders or
because of lack of references.
171
Table 46 : Comparison of scenario 2 Non-binding support measures with the baseline scenario on
the different judgement areas.
Scenario 2*
Differences compared to baseline scenario
Small investments in add ons

Time for education and training
Religious acceptability
No differences: all types of restraint systems

are allowed
Work safety
++
Better processes with less incidents and/or

less severe incidents.
Intra-EU Trade and trade

with third countries
No change in production nor in Intra-EU

trade and trade with third countries
+++
Improved processes in the bleeding area,

with better welfare for bovine animals
slaughtered without stunning.
Judgement area
Economic costs
Animal welfare
*For each judgement area a qualitative label is provided indicating whether the area is improving (+) or not (-)
and how much in comparison with the baseline situation.
172
SCENARIO 2: NON-BINDING SUPPORT MEASURES

Compared to the baseline scenario some impacts can be expected. Firstly, these impacts are
summarized in table 46 followed by an explanation beneath that. From this we can conclude
that in comparison with the baseline, improved animal welfare is at the top in scenario 2
followed by better work conditions at minimal cost. All these evolutions will have an
additional cost for the EU and for the slaughterhouse in the short run.
Economic costs
In this scenario the course of the number of slaughterhouses and animals slaughtered
without stunning is comparable with that expected in the baseline.
In comparison with the baseline, this scenario will increase costs for slaughterhouses. Some
investments are needed in add-ons to better monitor the process and animal welfare during
restraining. However, in general the costs will be marginal while quality improvement can be
realised with small investment in add-ons of restraining system, without changing the line
speed and without additional man power. So we foresee hardly any obstacle from this point
of view. Of course, as in every sector, for individual companies costs can turn out to be
higher than the average that we forecast.
Moreover, the costs per adult cattle slaughtered for both restraint systems will not change
significantly, given the fact that line speed is decisive for the slaughter costs.
For slaughterhouses and slaughtermen this scenario will in the short run cost time for
training and implementation of the improved standard operating procedures. Part of the
improved standard operating procedures will focus both on the monitoring of animal
welfare and work safety. These costs can be minimized if the training and implementation is
part of a normal training program. As such, this scenario will first increase costs but can
generate benefits if the process in the bleeding area can be optimized and e.g. the line speed
can be increased. In addition, the technical and scientific studies to refine existing systems
and operating procedures can support an increase in the quality of the processes of the
bleeding area.
In short, the costs of implementing this scenario primarily consist of developing improved
standard operating procedures and disseminating them. For developing the procedures the
technical recommendations from the present study can be used, in conjunction with
information on existing procedures like the French guide to good practice.
For this, this judgement area is scored with a small minus because of the cost increases in
the short run.
173
174
Religious aspects
Within this scenario all religious wishes are expected to be fulfilled, like in the baseline
scenario. So for this, no change is expected.
Workers safety
The support measures in this scenario are improving process quality and hereby workers
safety is one of the benefitting areas. A better organisation of the working area is foreseen
while knowledge and practise are deepened. A significant positive impact can be expected if
measures are implemented by slaughterhouses, slaughtermen and national authorities
because the interaction between animals, people and equipment is improved.
By improving the standard operating procedures, by additional education and training of the
slaughtermen, and by improving the restraint systems simultaneously, work safety can be
increased. Results of this research show that directors of slaughterhouses are highly
interested in improving work safety. Based on the arguments it can be expected that the
majority of slaughterhouses and slaughtermen are willing to join the program for improving
the quality of the processes. The drawback is that such a program is already implemented on
national scale in France. Therefore we leave France out of the calculations for this part. As a
result, in 60% of the other slaughterhouses (all slaughterhouses excluding France) the
operators will benefit9. For this, this area is scored with two plusses.
Intra-EU trade and trade with third countries
No major change in slaughter costs is forecasted in this scenario. This implies that the
competitiveness of slaughterhouses will not be affected by this nor the trade flows of meat
from bovine animals slaughtered without stunning. Competiveness of slaughterhouses will
depend on other factors than the implementation of improved standard operation
procedures, for example entrepreneurship. For this, no change is expected.
At least one team of operators is active in the restraining area, but common practice is
the presence of more teams.
175
176
Animal Welfare
In this scenario support measures are introduced and aiming at accelerating the
improvement of the quality of the slaughtering process in terms of animal welfare and work
safety. Improved standard operating procedures, better trained operators and improved
equipment are input and, when applied correctly, key output will be an improved interaction
between people, animals and restraint system. Adding the focus on animal welfare (e.g.
optimized and monitored restraining method, limited duration of restraint or improved
design of the head restrainer) positive effects on animal welfare are expected for this
scenario. This holds for both types of restraint systems.
Slaughtering is not a fully mechanized operation, so the well-being of the animals partly
depends on the work and the skills of the personnel. This scenario will increase the
knowledge of slaughter men regarding animal behaviour. This will positively impact on
animal welfare. Operators will become more adequately trained to recognise animals
behaviour and intervene whenever necessary to reduce for example stress. On the basis of
these developments, we may expect that annually some 800,000 animals slaughtered
without stunning in the EU will benefit from improved standard operating procedures over
the next 15 years (33% of the animals slaughtered in 2029). For this, this judgement area is
score with three plusses.
177
Table 47 : Comparison of scenario 3 : legal minimum requirements for restraint system with the
baseline scenario on the different judgement areas
Scenario 3*
Differences compared to baseline

scenario
15 to 32 slaughterhouse will cease

slaughtering bovine animals without
stunning. A small part of the restraint
system will not be fully depreciated.
Religious acceptability
Both types of restraint systems

(upright and rotating) are permitted
Work safety
By phasing out the inferior restraint

system also some dangerous work
conditions will disappear and work
safety will be increased for few
workers
Intra-EU Trade and trade

with third countries
No change in production nor in IntraEU Trade and trade with third

countries
Animal welfare
Better welfare for 1 to 3% of the

animals slaughtered without stunning
Judgement area
Economic costs
The judgement areas are compared to the baseline scenario. For each area a qualitative label is provided
indicating whether the area is improving (+) or not (-) in comparison with the base line situation.
178
SCENARIO 3: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTRAINT SYSTEM

Compared to the baseline scenario some impacts can be expected by implementing
minimum requirements for restraint systems. Firstly, these are summarized in table 47
followed by an explanation beneath that. From this we can conclude that in comparison with
the baseline scenario, animal welfare will be improved in scenario 3 followed by slightly
better work conditions at minimal cost.
Economic costs
Restraint systems should meet minimum requirements in this scenario. In general, no costs
are foreseen other than costs to check if the present restraint systems meet the minimum
requirements. Only for a small part of slaughterhouses in EU this scenario could add costs in
the bleeding area to adapt the present system to meet the minimum requirements. Based
on expert judgement we assume that improving the system currently in use is hardly likely.
As such, present restraint systems will not be adjusted and systems will not be replaced
either. Instead these slaughterhouses will cease slaughtering without stunning, or even
cease production altogether. All slaughterhouses with poorly designed systems will be
affected since the minimum requirements are mandatory. As we hypothesized above, not
more than 5 to 10% of the slaughterhouses use poorly designed system (15-32
slaughterhouses). It is difficult to predict the precise number of slaughterhouses which may
be affected; this will need further investigations because it will also depend on the level of
the minimum standards required. No essential differences or shift between upright and
rotating system are expected. For this, this judgement area is scored with a minus.
Religious aspects
The modifications are such that all religious wishes will be fulfilled, like in the baseline
scenario. For this, no change is expected.
Workers safety
By phasing out the restraint systems that do not meet the minimum requirements work
safety will be improved. So the number of scarce incidents, which we assume to be related
with inferior restraining systems, will be further reduced. The uniqueness of the cases makes
it impossible to calculate the number of operators that will be affected by this scenario. For
this, we expect the work safety conditions for a few operators in the bleeding area to
improve which is scored with a plus.
179
180
Intra EU trade and trade with third countries

No change in slaughter costs and in demand and supply of meat from bovine animals
slaughtered without stunning is forecasted in this scenario compared to the baseline
scenario. This also means that competition among slaughterhouses will not be affected and
sub consequently the trade flow of meat from bovine animals slaughtered without stunning.
For this, no change is expected.
Animal Welfare
By phasing out the restraint systems that do not meet the minimum requirements animal
welfare will be improved. It is assumed that the restraint systems that hurt the animal
welfare the most will be banned in the future.
As most of the existing restraint systems will meet the minimum requirements the animal
welfare will not change in many slaughterhouses. Annually around 30,000 70,000 animals
will benefit (1-3%).
For this, this judgement area is scored with a plus.
181

Table 48 : Comparison of the different scenario with the baseline on all judgement areas.
Judgement
area
Baseline
Scenario 2 : Non-binding support

measures
Scenario 3 :Minimum requirements

for restraining systems
No additional adjustment cost as all

expenses for the measures are voluntary and
financially supported by EU
Additional training and advice through
support measures will be more valuable for
small and medium enterprise where staff is
limited
0
Almost negligible increase in cost; a few

slaughterhouse probably close down
because restraint system does not meet
minimum requirements
No change compared to the baseline
++
If a slaughterhouse decides to take up the

gauntlet, scenario 2 deals with an integrated
approach. Key output will be an improved
interaction between people, animals and
restraint system and better work safety.
0
One element of the process is positively

influenced: the system. But it is only one
element, other variables are not directly
impacted by this scenario, so small
positive impact on work safety
0
+++
Economic
costs
Religious
acceptability
Work safety
Intra EU trade
and trade with
third countries
Animal
welfare
If a slaughterhouse decides to take up the

By phasing out the restraint systems that
gauntlet, scenario 2 deals with an integrated do not meet the minimum requirements
approach. Key output will be an improved
animal welfare will be improved. As most
interaction between people, animals and
of the existing restraint system will meet
restraint system. This scenario 2 will lead to
the minimum requirement; in many
a more deep-rooted improvement of animal slaughterhouses the animal welfare will
welfare
not change.
182
COMPARING THE SCENARIOS

The main results are summarized in table 48.
The biggest impact in the near future on animal welfare and work safety is expected for the
baseline scenario. The reason is that in France, with estimated almost 60% of all slaughtered
animal without stunning in the EU (2012), a voluntary program is running where improved
standard operating procedures are implemented in the slaughterhouses with the
involvement and approval of all stakeholders. Such program is lacking in other Member
States with a substantial number of bovine animals slaughtered without stunning, The
Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom and Belgium.
In comparison with the baseline scenario, both alternative scenarios will positively
contribute to animal welfare and work safety. Especially in scenario 2 bovine animals and
operators will benefit more than in scenario 3. Economic cost score a small minus in both
alternative scenarios while the other judgement areas are not affected compared to the
baseline.
In the baseline scenario the conditions for the majority of bovine animals and a lot of
workers is already improved. Scenario 2 would add to this, but contribution of scenario 3 is
relatively marginal. For example in the baseline 64% of the animals slaughtered will have
better welfare conditions in the bleeding area and scenario 2 and 3 will add a maximum of
33% and 3% to that figure. If a slaughterhouse decides to take up the gauntlet, scenario 2
deals with a more integrated approach, while in scenario 3 animal welfare will be improved
by phasing out restraint systems that do not meet the minimum requirements. As such the
expected impact on animal welfare and work safety in scenario 3 is far less than the
expected impact of scenario 2.
Some remarks have to be made with respect to the impact of scenario 2: there will be a split
between slaughterhouses voluntary introducing improved standard operating procedures
and train their people and slaughterhouses not changing anything. Though part of the
optimisation of the slaughter process in the bleeding area (= scenario 2) can be financially
supported by the EU through dissemination, training and advice program by local experts
these support measures are voluntary. Therefore this scenario runs the risk that many small
slaughterhouses performing the slaughter of bovine animals without stunning only in peak
periods will not make use of these voluntary measures. Also slaughterhouses that have plans
to stop their activities will probably not use the support measures (this is only a temporary
problem). On the other hand, financial support can stimulate a collective approach in other
countries like in France. We may expect that incentives from the European level may help to
disseminate the information and share experience and, consequently, induce improvement
and harmonisation.
183
184
INDICATORS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The terms of references requests for core progress indicators of a possible EU intervention. However,
the possible interventions with regard to restraint systems are limited to:
a. non-binding support measures;
b. defining minimum requirements for restraint systems.
For all the scenarios upright restraint systems and rotating restraint systems are allowed at EU level.
Therefore we focus on indicators for monitoring the evolution of the future situation under
Regulation (EC) No 1099/ 2009.
In line with the study on various methods of stunning for poultry (FCEC, 2012) we note that general
monitoring of the legislation on animal welfare is included in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official
controls on feed and food. What is required for the restraint system is the gathering of specific
figures to get an overview of the developments in:
number of slaughterhouses performing slaughter without stunning (number of

authorizations);
the number of (bovine) animals cut without stunning;
type of restraining system used;
presence of standard operating procedures.
These figures of the context should be collected annually or bi-annually to see the progress made.
Member States, where slaughtering of bovine animals without pre-stunning is allowed, should be
requested to provide this information to the Commission in a standard format. This study shows that
in 2013 not all national governments have a central list of these figures. Two main countries with
regard to bovine animals slaughtered without stunning are among them France and the United
Kingdom. The study also shows that Member States who have such lists are not always able to give
the updated information.
If it is fairly impossible to gather these data by these Member States, or this system is deemed to be
too much a burden on Member States or slaughterhouses, a periodic survey can be carried out like
was done in this study. A survey can be combined with visits to slaughterhouses. In that case also
some output indicators can be gathered like number of training executed and certificates for
slaughtermen, welfare officers and work safety officers. In this case also indicators related to animal
welfare or work safety (see annex 10 for possible indicators) can be gathered.
185
186
CONCLUSION ON THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

Religious acceptability is the most important factor for the choice of a type of restraint
system. A general preference for rotating system is expressed by religious representatives of
the Jewish and Muslim community in all countries.
The differences between the upright and rotating restraint system regarding other socioeconomic aspects are small. The upright restraint system is cheaper in use than the rotating
system (less than 1 euro per bovine animal for regular use of the system) but other factors
like numbers of animals slaughtered and line speed are far more decisive for the slaughter
costs.
The choice of the restraint system has a minor impact on competitiveness of the European
slaughterhouses compared to main exporting countries of meat of bovine animals cut
without stunning.
Where using a modern restraning system, work safety is more linked to the layout of
bleeding/hoisting areas and the operating procedures than to the type of restraining system
used.
Although the information is scattered it can be assumed that at least 80% of the bovine
animals slaughtered without stunning are slaughtered with a modern restraining system in
the EU. If these systems are used in the right way neither animal welfare nor work safety
should be unduly endangered. However, in practice the process from entering the animal in
the bleeding area till hoisting the animal is often not optimal, and this leads to situations in
which animal welfare is endangered. In the 18 slaughterhouses visited, there were some
possible improvement at different stage of the process.
Besides the suboptimal slaughtering process there is also a small minority (estimated at 5 to
10%) of restraint systems that dont meet the minimum requirements (according to the
judgement of the experts involved in this project) to slaughter bovine animals without
stunning under optimal conditions for the welfare of the animals.
The different scenarios will not impact the use of the type of restraint systems in practice.
Upright and rotating systems are allowed in all scenarios.
Opting for no additional EU action (baseline scenario) will increase animal welfare and work
safety in many slaughterhouses. In France (which represents nearly 60% of the bovine
animals slaughtered without stunning in the EU), a national voluntaryprogram for
developing and implementing standard operating procedures and educating and training of
people involved in the bleeding area is implemented. Such a program is still lacking in some
other Member States where many bovine animals are slaughtered without stunning.
187
188
Opting for non-binding support measures will speed up the improvement of animal welfare
during slaughtering without stunning, especially in other Member States than France.
Experiences from France show that commitment, trust and cooperation of government,
slaughterhouses managers and religious representatives is needed to develop and
implement such a programme.
One important condition exists at this moment. All stakeholders interviewed are willing to
enhance animal welfare and the work safety of the people working in the bleeding area.
However, mutual trust among stakeholders is not present in all EU Member States and this
might limit the efficiency of such option. In addition, this option has two negative aspects:
firstly, it involves for the EU budget one-off costs of around 1 million Euros to develop and
implement improved standard operating programmes and research program. Secondly,
differences within countries and slaughterhouses who participate and who do not may
increase.
Opting for minimum requirements for restraint system has as advantage that almost no
costs or investments are involved (only for 15 to 32 slaughterhouses not meeting the
minimum requirements). The disadvantage is that this scenario will have less additional
impact on animal welfare and work safety as only slaughterhouses not meeting the
minimum requirements are affected. The main drawback of this scenario, compared to the
second one, is that we expect that only a few restraining devices will be banned and most
slaughterhouses will not be affected at all. As such the impact on animal welfare and work
safety in scenario 3 is far less than the impact of scenario 2.
189
190
7. GENERAL CONCLUSION
CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
In slaughterhouses, bovine are restrained in upright position in a box before being stunned,
mainly by a penetrating captive bolt. However, the EU legislation (Regulation (EC) No
1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing) also allows the possibility to
derogate from stunning animals in the case of religious slaughter (Jewish and Muslim
methods of slaughter).
For that purpose, specific restraining systems have been designed to reverse the animal
upside down or on its side in order to facilitate the cutting by the slaughterman (rotating
system). However, during the process of adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, there
was a debate on the welfare aspects of such rotating restraining system.
As a result, this regulation requires the Commission to submit to the European Parliament
and the Council a report on systems restraining bovine animals by inversion or any
unnatural position.
The purpose of the present study was therefore to collect the relevant information for the
preparation of the above mentioned Commission report. Here below are the main findings
of the study.
The study exclusively refers to the slaughter without stunning of bovine animals and
conclusions are limited to this scope. The study does not aim at questioning the legitimacy of
slaughter without stunning for religious reasons.
RESTRAINT PRACTICES OF BOVINE ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT

STUNNING
No more than 8% of bovine animals were slaughtered without stunning in the EU in 2012,
most of them (84%) in only four Member States (France, The Netherlands, Spain and United
Kingdom) involving approximately 400 slaughterhouses.
Almost 80% of these animals are slaughtered in a rotating device and the remaining 20% in
an upright device. Within the main Member States that perform slaughtering without
stunning, the use of the rotating device is not permitted only in the United Kingdom.
Through a survey carried out in 116 slaughterhouses, it was estimated that approximately
60% of the bovine animals are slaughtered without stunning in inverted position, 17-18% of
the animals in upright position and 15% in lateral position.
191
192
More than 30 manufacturers/models have been identified for the restraint of cattle for
slaughter without stunning. However, no more than seven manufacturers of rotating
restraint devices are present in more than half of the slaughterhouses or in large scale
slaughterhouses. This contrasts with a large diversity of the origin of the equipment, mainly
from local manufacturers, in the other slaughterhouses. Overall, 67% of the restraint devices
were less than 10 years old.
Slaughterhouse operators primarily choose their restraining system for slaughter without
stunning to meet the religious expectations of their customers. Religious representatives
from Muslim and Jewish communities confirmed that inverted or lateral position is the
preferred position. Consequently, during the last 30 years, except in the United Kingdom
where inverted systems were banned, most of the slaughterhouses in the EU have invested
in rotating system and have optimised their procedure accordingly.
However, upright devices are cheaper than rotating ones both in terms of investments and
operating costs but these costs are low compared to the costs of the overall slaughter line.
These costs do not play a significant role for the competitiveness of business operators.
Labour cost, the line speed or the number of animal slaughtered per year are factors far
more economically important for the competitiveness of a slaughterhouse than the type of
restraining system.
Little information is available on trade of halal or kosher bovine meat within the EU or with
third countries. Exports to third countries (Israel or predominantly Muslim countries) over
the last years are very low and variable according to political agreements (e.g. Turkey). IntraEU trade does not appear to be very significant and most of the meat is sold locally.
Where using modern restraining devices, work safety is more linked to the layout of the
bleeding and hoisting area rather than the type of restraining device itself. Releasing and
hoisting the animals represent a major risk for the safety of workers and this applies to both
restraining systems.
WELFARE OF ANIMALS AND RESTRAINT DEVICES/PRACTICES

In terms of animal welfare, both rotating and upright restraint systems have strengths and
weaknesses. Specific animal welfare concerns of rotating systems are delays in operation
between entry and slaughter, and pain/stress/distress from being restrained in an unnatural
position. Upright restraints can cause pain and distress to the animal if excessive pressure is
applied on the body or the head during restraint, and more skill is required to perform a
successful neck cut than inverted or lateral restraints.
193
194
From our observations on various animal welfare criteria carried out on more than 1000
animals observed from entry into to the device to post bleeding period in commercial
slaughterhouses, no conclusive findings could be established in favour of one of the two
types of restraining systems. More than 20 variables were analysed. The ranges of the
duration of restraint, the operator or animal behaviour, the cut and the course of loss of
consciousness after the cut were similar in the different positions. Most of the extreme
values observed or deficiencies could be explained by inefficient operating procedure or
poor skill of operators, on one hand, or improper layout of the bleeding area or design of the
restraint device, on the other hand. This applied to both restraining system, rotating and
upright.
Based on these observations and experts opinions, we suggest recommendations to
improve the welfare of animals and workers' safety. Quantitative objective based on best
practices observed (e. g. duration of restraint in inverted position, number of cuts) are
provided for animal welfare officer to monitor the efficiency of their procedure (see section
5).
SCENARIOS FOR FUTURE EU POLICIES

In addition, the study explored three options for possible future EU initiative: (1) no EU
action (baseline), (2) non-binding measures and (3) minimum requirements for restraining
devices.
Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 applies from January 2013 and its implementation by the
European meat industry is still ongoing on several aspects in particular the development of
good practices.
In the next 15 years, the number of bovine animals slaughtered without stunning is
expected to slightly increased in the EU (due to the growth of the Muslim population) while
the number of slaughterhouses is expected to decrease. Based on previous trends, we
expect that 300 slaughterhouses will perform slaughter without stunning at the end of this
period. This will increase the number of animals slaughtered per slaughterhouse and slightly
decrease the slaughter costs. No major change is expected in terms of restraining systems
used or in trade of such meat (intra-EU or with third countries).
Without any new EU initiative, we still expect an improvement of animal welfare and work
safety for the slaughter of bovine animals without stunning. This is mainly due to the
proactive strategy developed in France (guidelines and training) where more than 50% of the
slaughter of bovine animals without stunning of the EU took place (based on 2012
estimation).
195
196
Compared to this baseline, the option of non-binding support measures would have clear
positive impacts on animal welfare and work safety, especially in other countries than
France (approximately one third of the animals slaughtered without stunning) without
major negative effect on costs, religious acceptability or trade. This scenario is based on the
development of EU guidelines for improved procedures, additional training, promotion of
additional prerequisites and technical/pilot studies.
Experiences from France show that commitment, trust and cooperation between public
authorities, the meat industry and religious representatives are needed to develop and
implement such programmes. We consider that in the rest of the EU these conditions are
also met since most EU stakeholders are committed to improve animal welfare and
workers' safety. However, this voluntary approach involves a cost for the EU budget and the
process will not lead to a more harmonized set of rules within European Union since it is
likely that few operators will ignore the proposed measures.
The option of setting up minimum requirements for restraint device by amending the
legislation has the advantage of generating almost no costs or investments (only for
slaughterhouses not meeting the minimum requirements). However, our observations have
showed that, in terms of quantitative effect, improvements on animal welfare and work
safety largely depend on the progress realised on operating procedures and skills of the
personnel rather than by changing or upgrading pieces of equipment. Therefore, this
scenario will have much less positive impact on animal welfare and work safety than the
previous option since few slaughterhouses are likely to be concerned (expected to account
for less than 30).
197
198
8. FIGURES
Figure 1: Organization of the project ...................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2 : Minimum requirements for restraint device ..................................................................................... 12
Figure 3 : Example of rotating restraint in inverted position (source: Banss)....................................................... 12
Figure 4 : Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 27 Member States ........................................... 34
Figure 5 : Use of rotating or upright restraint device for bovine animals in the 13 Member States where
slaughter without stunning is performed (Source: BoRest Study 'competent authorities survey'-Data: 2012) 38
Figure 6 : Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 6 countries selected by the study .................... 42
Figure 7 : Number and percentage of bovine animals slaughtered with and without stunning in the 6 selected
countries in 2012 .................................................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 8 : Number and percentage of bovine animals slaughtered with or without stunning and restraining
systems used to perform slaughter without stunning .......................................................................................... 44
Figure 9 : Number and percentage of respondents to the survey compared to the total number of
slaughterhouses licensed to perform slaughter of bovine animals without stunning in the selected countries . 48
Figure 10 : Number of calves and adult cattle slaughtered according to conventional slaughtering, dhabiha and
shechita rite in the 116 slaughterhouses surveyed .............................................................................................. 50
Figure 11 : Type and number of restraining devices used in the 116 slaughterhouses of the sample ................. 50
Figure 12 : Number of devices according to the year of investment .................................................................... 54
Figure 13 : Description of the restraining practices used to slaughter adult cattle in terms of number of
slaughterhouses and in terms of number of animals slaughtered ..................................................................... 54
Figure 14 : Number of slaughterhouses according to the restraining practices used .......................................... 56
Figure 15 : Number of adult bovine animals slaughtered without stunning according to the restraining
practices used in the 6 selected countries ........................................................................................................... 56
Figure 16 : Percentage of slaughterhouses and calves slaughtered without stunning according to the
restraining practices ............................................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 17 : Standard pattern of the used of rotating device ................................................................................. 72
Figure 18 : Standard pattern of the used of upright device .................................................................................. 72
Figure 19 : Research design for socio-economic research .................................................................................. 124
199
200
9. TABLES
..................................................................................................................................................................................
Table 1 : Summary of the location visited in the different countries and the groups of animals assessed
according to the category of animals and the restraining method......................................................................... 6
Table 2 : Basic principles of restraint device design common for all restrain systems - adapted from Grandins
(2013) .................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Table 3 : Studies investigating the interval between entry and slaughter for rotating and upright restraint
systems (standard deviation SD; standard error SE) ............................................................................................. 26
Table 4: Medium time and range (seconds) for entry and initiation of physical of restraint, start of restraint and
end of rotation, and end of rotation and cut in cattle slaughter without stunning (Warin-Ramette & Mirabito
2010) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 5 : Studies investigating the time to insensibility after ventral neck incision slaughter without prior
stunning in cattle and the parameters reported. ................................................................................................. 28
Table 6 : General situation of slaughter without stunning practices in the 27 Member States ........................... 34
Table 7 : Number of slaughterhouses officially registered in the selected Member States and number and
percentage of slaughterhouses performing slaughter of bovine animals without stunning ................................ 36
Table 8 : Number and percentage of bovine animals slaughtered with and without stunning in each of the 13
Member States where slaughter without stunning is performed ........................................................................ 38
Table 9 : Use of rotating or up right restraint device for slaughter without stunning of the bovine animals
according to competent authorities in the Member States in 2012* ................................................................... 40
Table 10 : Implementation of regulation EC NO1099/2009 regarding religious slaughter in the Member States
(Source BoRest study competent authorities survey-Data: 2013) .................................................................... 40
Table 11 : Number of slaughtermen registered in the 6 selected Member States (Source: Borest study
competent authorities survey-Data: 2012) ....................................................................................................... 46
Table 12 : Profile of the respondents of the slaughterhouses survey (calves: less than 8 months old - adult:
more than 8 months old) ...................................................................................................................................... 48
Table 13 : Type and number of restraining system installed in the slaughterhouse according to the main species
slaughtered ........................................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 14 : Number of slaughterhouses and adult cattle slaughtered without stunning according to the device
(manufacturer) and the restraining practice ........................................................................................................ 58
Table 15 : Number of slaughterhouses and calves slaughtered without stunning according to the device
(manufacturer) and the restraining practice ........................................................................................................ 60
Table 16: Characteristics of the slaughterhouses ................................................................................................. 66
Table 17 : Definition of the variables analysed ..................................................................................................... 74
201
202

Table 18 : Duration (s) of entry of the adult bovine into the restraint device (from nose in box to head out of
box) (Source: BoRest study assessment of welfare) ........................................................................................ 76
Table 19 : Human-animal interactions (HAI) during entry of adult bovine into the restraining device................ 76
Table 20 : Animal behaviour in the restraint device- Adult bovine ...................................................................... 78
Table 21 : Duration (s) of entry of the calves into the restraint device ................................................................ 80
Table 22 : Behaviour of the calves during the entry into the restraint device ..................................................... 80
Table 23 : Restraint durations (s) of adult bovines ............................................................................................... 84
Table 24 : Vocalisation of adult bovine during restraint ....................................................................................... 86
Table 25 : Frequency of adult bovine with a bad head restraint according to the slaughterhouse (Source:
BoRest study assessment of welfare) ................................................................................................................ 88
Table 26: Restraint durations (s) of calves ............................................................................................................ 88
Table 27: Vocalization and quality of head restraint of calves ............................................................................. 90
Table 28 : Number of cuts per animal - Adult bovine ........................................................................................... 92
Table 29 : Quality of bleeding Adult bovine ....................................................................................................... 94
Table 30 : Number of cuts per animal - calves ...................................................................................................... 96
Table 31 : Quality of bleeding calves .................................................................................................................. 96
Table 32 : Frequency of animals with spontaneous eyes movements according to the period after the cut
(Source: BoRest study assessment of welfare) .................................................................................................. 98
Table 33 : Frequency of animals with Eye ball rotation according to the period after the cut .......................... 101
Table 34 : Frequency of animals with corneal reflex according to the period after the cut ............................... 102
Table 35 : Frequency of animals with Struggle according to the period after the cut........................................ 104
Table 36 : Frequency of animals who inspire according to the period after the cut .......................................... 106
Table 37 : Summary of the frequencies of adults bovine showing the different signs of consciousness or loss of
consciousness according to the period after the cut .......................................................................................... 108
Table 38 : Assessed indicators per judgement area for the SWOT analysis of different types of restraining
devices for slaughtering bovine animals without stunning ................................................................................ 124
Table 39 : Research topics in the questionnaires per interviewee ..................................................................... 126
Table 40 : Number of responses per stakeholder group .................................................................................... 126
Table 41 : Summary of the valuation of indicators to compare upright with rotating restraining systems ....... 132
Table 42: Total costs (in euro per year) for upright and rotating restraining systems.................................... 134
Table 43: Costs per animal in the restraining area for upright and rotating systems for different line speeds . 136
203
204

Table 44: Costs per animal in the restraining area for upright and rotating systems for different quantities of
annual slaughterings (in euro) ............................................................................................................................ 136
Table 45: Result of a PEST analysis regarding restraint of bovine animals during slaughtering without stunning
............................................................................................................................................................................ 152
Table 46 : Comparison of scenario 2 Non-binding support measures with the baseline scenario on the
different judgement areas. ................................................................................................................................. 172
Table 47 : Comparison of scenario 3 : legal minimum requirements for restraint system with the baseline
scenario on the different judgement areas ........................................................................................................ 178
Table 48 : Comparison of the different scenario with the baseline on all judgement areas. ............................ 182
205
206
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE AT THE TIME OF KILLING ......... 209
ANNEX 2 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE AT THE TIME OF KILLING ......... 215
ANNEX 3 : LIST OF MANUFACTURERS AND NUMBER OF DEVICES PER SELECTED COUNTRY ............................. 221
ANNEX 4 : EQUIPMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKING AREA ............................................................. 223
ANNEX 5 : DEFINITION OF OPERATING PROCEDURE AND BEHAVIORAL ITEMS ................................................. 225
ANNEX 6 : BEHAVORIAL AND OPERATING PROCEDURE OBSERVATION .......................................................... 229
ANNEX 7 : ANIMALS CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................................. 233
ANNEX 8: QUESTIONNAIRES FOR DATA COLLECTION (SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS) ............................... 235
ANNEX 9 : METHODOLOGY FOR THE MEETING WITH RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATIVES ....................................... 251
ANNEX 10 : PROPOSED BASIS FOR IMPROVED STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND WORK SAFETY ...... 253
ANNEX 11: VALUATION OF THE INDICATORS PER JUDGEMENT AREA TO COMPARE THE UPRIGHT AND
ROTATING RESTRAINING SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................... 257
207
208
10. ANNEXES
ANNEX 1 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE
AT THE TIME OF KILLING
This questionnaire applies ONLY TO CATTLE.
Please try to answer by using the data of 2012. If not, specify the year.
1. INTRODUCTION
Current EU legislation gives a dispensation from stunning animals for religious
slaughter (Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter). It is a requirement in the legislation
that animals are immobilized until the loss of consciousness. In commercial slaughterhouses
in Europe, bovines are currently being restrained in the upright position or inverted (or
restrained laterally) in a rotating box.
During the EC Council debate that led to the adoption of Regulation 1099/2009, some
delegates expressed concerns about the impact on animal welfare of the use of rotating box,
while others argued that these systems have some advantages for slaughter without
stunning. It was settled, that the Commission would submit a report to the European
Parliament and the Council, the report will be based on the results of a scientific study,
which will investigate the animal welfare aspects and socio-economic implications of
different restraint systems.
A consortium of scientists, economic experts and sociologists originating from 6 EU
Member States and one non-EU country will perform the study that will be used for the
evaluation
of
policy
options
by
DG
SANCO
(http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/financing/docs/call_2012_10357_tor_rotating_b
ox_en.pdf).
The initial phase of the study will collect information on the current practices in
terms of restraining systems in Member States and some third countries. The objectives are
to get information on restraining practices used for slaughter without stunning.
In the first step, competent authorities are contacted to provide an overview of the
situation in their country, and provide information on slaughterhouses which have a
derogation to slaughter bovines without stunning. In the second step, slaughterhouses will
be individually contacted for further information on the restraining systems currently in
operation and their operating procedures. An animal welfare assessment and an evaluation
of economic and work safety implications will be performed at a later stage in the project in
a sub-sample of European slaughterhouses.
209
Overall the study aims to analyze the welfare of bovines in during slaughter without
prior stunning in different restraining systems and to evaluate the range of relevant
improvements that could be made in terms of equipment and practices. The study will also
take into account socio-economic implications and stakeholders acceptability.
In [country], the investigation is being conducted by (name BOREST partner).
We would be grateful if you could please spare a few minutes to answer the surveys
questions. Any information provided will be treated in the strictest confidence and no
individual organization/slaughterhouse/companies will be named. We also like to emphasize
that the aim of this survey is to obtain reliable and up to date data. So where possible please
use real data, however if an estimate is provide, please indicate.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION
Country: ___________________________________________________________________
Please identify your organization (name of organization): ___________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Questionnaire completed by:
Name: ______________________________________________________________
Email: ______________________________________________________________
Phone number: _______________________________________________________
3. CATTLE SLAUGHTERED
3.1 Annual numbers of cattle slaughtered in your country from 2007 to 2012
If available, please specify data for adult cattle and calves. If the numbers of cattle
slaughtered is not available, please indicate volume of beef produced (in tons of carcass
weight equivalent)
NUMBER
UNIT
ADULT CATTLE
CALVES
2007
2008
210
2009
2010
2011
2012
3.2 Number of religiously slaughtered cattle in 2012
Please estimate the percentage of cattle religiously slaughtered in 2012 by Dhabiha or
Shechita methods (if figures are unavailable for the previous year please estimated using
2011 figures).
Year of the data :
Bovine animal
Dhabiha
Shechita
3.3 Please estimate the amount of meat (in tons) obtained from cattle slaughtered
without stunning (according to Art. 4 regulation 1099/2009) that is :
Imported to your country
Please indicate the main country of origin: ____________________________
Exported from your country
Please indicate the main country of origin: ____________________________
Tick here if you dont have this information
3.4 What percentage of cattle slaughtered in your country are restrained with the
following restraint systems :
Rotating pen : ________%
Upright pen : ________%
3.5 Percentage of cattle slaughtered per category in 2012

If 2012 is not available, please present the most recent data and indicate the year
211
Year :
Dhabiha
Shechita
100%
100%
No stun applied
Methods
Pre-cut stun (stun applied

prior to cut/bleeding)
Post-cut stun applied (stun
after the cut/bleeding)
TOTAL
3.6 In the next 5 years, do you expect the number of animals slaughtered without any
form of stunning to :
Please estimate the percentage in the case of increase or decrease
Increase (____________%)
Decrease (___________%)
Remain stable
4. SLAUGHTERHOUSES AND LEGISLATION

4.1 What is the number of slaughterhouses that :
Are officially registered in your country or approved by the competent authority
according to regulation N853/2004 for slaughtering cattle? ____________________
If data are available only for red meat as a whole, please specify
Have an exemption to slaughter cattle without stunning according to Regulation

N1099/2009 in your country? ____________________________________________
If data are available only for red meat as a whole, please specify
4.2 Enforcement of regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of
killing
4.2.1 Have additional rules been implemented in your country concerning religious
slaughter since the adoption of regulation N1099/2009 in the protection of
animals at the time of killing?
Yes
No
212
4.2.2 If yes, what do they specify concerning :
Stunning
Animal position
Slaughtermen training
Traceability system for incoming and

outgoing orders of meat obtained
from animals religiously slaughtered
Duration of restraining
Minimum time between bleeding and

the beginning of the processing
Other
4.2.3 How is it currently ensured in your country that slaughterhouse employees dealing
with live animals are competent regarding animal welfare?
Training
Licensing
Animal welfare officer (local or central government)
Other (please specify) :
Nothing
4.3 How many slaughtermen were registered in your country in 2012?
Please indicate the number of slaughtermen who had a license certifying their competence to
perform.
213
Dhabiha slaughter
Shechita slaughter
4.4 Licensing requirements for slaughtermen involved in slaughter without stunning in

your country.
4.4.1 Is there any specific license for slaughtermen performing religious slaughter without
stunning?
Yes
No
4.4.2 If yes, does the license include an approval or authorization of a religious
community or a religious institution?
Yes
No
4.4.3 If yes, please name the relevant religious institution/authorities who give
approval for licensing religious slaughtermen:
Dhabiha slaughter
Shechita slaughter
4.5 Please provide a list of slaughterhouses that are licensed to perform slaughter
without stunning of cattle (only for 7 selected Member States : FR, BE, IT, ES, NL,
GB, IRE)
If possible, please indicate for each plant:
Name
Location
Estimation of the number of cattle slaughtered without stunning per year
End. Thank you for your participation.
214
ANNEX 2 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE

AT THE TIME OF KILLING
Please complete and return this questionnaire
by email before______________________
This questionnaire applies ONLY ON CATTLE.

Please try to answer by using the data of 2012. If not, specify the year.
1. INTRODUCTION
Current EU legislation gives a dispensation from stunning animals for religious
slaughter (Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter). It is a requirement in the legislation
that animals are immobilized until the loss of consciousness. In commercial slaughterhouses
in Europe, bovines are currently being restrained in the upright position or inverted (or
restrained laterally) in a rotating box.
During the EC Council debate that led to the adoption of Regulation 1099/2009, some
delegates expressed concerns about the impact on animal welfare of the use of rotating box,
while others argued that these systems have some advantages for slaughter without
stunning. It was settled, that the Commission would submit a report to the European
Parliament and the Council, the report will be based on the results of a scientific study,
which will investigate the animal welfare aspects and socio-economic implications of
different restraint systems.
A consortium of scientists, economic experts and sociologists originating from 6 EU
Member States and one non-EU country will perform the study that will be used for the
evaluation
of
policy
options
by
DG
SANCO
(http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/financing/docs/call_2012_10357_tor_rotating_b
ox_en.pdf).
After having established an overview of the situation of slaughtering bovine without
stunning in the EU from competent authority, the present survey focused on the restraining
systems currently in operation and their operating procedures in all the slaughterhouses in 7
selected Member States. These data will be used to set a sub-sample of restraining devices
and slaughterhouses where an animal welfare assessment and an evaluation of economic
and work safety implications will be carried out in a later stage of the project.
215
Overall the study aims to analyze the welfare of bovines in different restraining
systems during slaughter without prior stunning and to evaluate the range of relevant
improvements that could be made in terms of equipments and practices; this will take into
account socio-economic implications and stakeholders acceptability.
In [country], the investigation is being conducted by (name BOREST partner).
We would be grateful if you could please spare a few minutes to answer the surveys
questions. Any information provided will be treated in the strictest confidence and no
individual organization/slaughterhouse/companies will be named. We also like to emphasize
that the aim of this survey is to obtain reliable and up to date data. So where possible please
use real data, however if an estimate is provide, please indicate.
2. LOCATION DATA
Country: ____________________________________________________________________
Slaughterhouses name: _______________________________________________________
Slaughterhouses address: _____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Identification code for your slaughterhouse: ______________________________________
Questionnaire completed by: ___________________________________________________
Phone number: ______________________________________________________________
Email: ______________________________________________________________________
3. GENERAL INFORMATION
3.1 Please mark the main species slaughtered in your plant (only one answer possible) :
Calves (up to 8 months)
Adult cattle
Sheep
216
3.2 How many cattle have been slaughtered in your plan in 2012 with following
methods?
If exact figures are unavailable for cattle religiously slaughtered, please indicate the total
number of cattle slaughtered in your plant and on estimation of the percentage of animals
slaughtered by Dhabiha and/or Shechita.
Number of cattle slaughtered
ADULT CATTLE
CALVES (up to 8 months)
Conventional
Dhabiha
METHODS
Shechita

DHABIHA
Calves
Adult cattle
(< 8
months)
SHECHITA
Calves
Adult cattle
(< 8
months)
No stun applied
STUNNING
METHODS
Post-cut stun
applied (stun after
the cut/bleeding)
Pre-cut stun
(stun applied prior
to cut/bleeding)
TOTAL
100%
100%
100%
100%
217
3.4 Is slaughter without stunning :

A predominant (majority of animals) practice in your plant?
A punctual activity (some categories of cattle or in relation with some
customers)?
3.5 What is the average line capacity in your plant when slaughtering cattle without
stunning?
Number / hour
Processing speed in calves per hour for slaughter without stunning
Processing speed in adult cattle per hour for slaughter without stunning
Processing speed in calves per hour for slaughter with stunning
Processing speed in adult cattle per hour for slaughter with stunning
4. TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE RESTRAINING DEVICE USED FOR THE

SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE
4.1 What type of restraining system is currently in use in your plant to perform
slaughter of cattle without stunning?
Rotating pen
Upright pen
4.2 Concerning the restraining device used in your plant to perform slaughter without
prior stunning, please indicate :
The manufacturer :
The model :
The year of construction :
The category of cattle :
If you use more than one restraining device, please indicate for the others:
The manufacturer :
The model :
The year of construction :
The category of cattle :
218
4.3 Have major modifications ever been made to the restraining system?
Yes
No
4.4 If yes, can you describe these modifications and the reasons for:
5. HANDLING AND RESTRAINING METHODS

For religiously slaughtered cattle can you please estimate the percentage of animals
slaughtered with these methods and corresponding restraint systems.
RESTRAINING METHOD
POSITION OF THE ANIMAL AT THE TOME OF BLEEDING
Upright
position
STUNNING
METHOD
Rotation
Rotation 90
45
(turned on the side)
Rotation 180
Other
(turned on the back) (specify)
No stun
applied
Post-cut
stun
6. POST-CUT MANAGEMENT
6.1 Is post-cut stunning performed in your plant?
Yes
No
Only as welfare intervention (poor bleeders, animal deemed unacceptable for
religious purposes during and after the cut)
IF YES
6.2 Is that practice performed :
Systematically (on every cattle religiously slaughtered)
Only in specific cases (client wishers)
6.3 Is post-cut stunning performed :
Immediately after the neck cut?
After a determined time after the cut or before the opening of the pen?
6.4 Which method is used :
219
Penetrating captive bolt

Non-penetrating captive bolt
Other (specify) : _______________________________________________
End. Thank you for your participation!
220
ANNEX 3 : LIST OF MANUFACTURERS AND NUMBER OF DEVICES PER

SELECTED COUNTRY
Country
Belgium
France
Italy
NL
Spain
UK
Manufacturer
Baeten
J&W Services
Nawi
Norman
Self made
AVI SILVA
BAERT
BANSS
BEMO
BSM IA
COMAZZI
Couedic Mador
Facomia
Norman
SIBEMIA
STORK
SUCMANU
Vendramini
Bulgarelli Engineering & Trade SRL
G &G MANTOVA
Innonceti e Cipollini
Nuova Innocenti e Cipollini
ROVANI
SLAUGHTERING SERVICE
Self made
Tonon Attrezzaure Per Mattatoi
VITELLI / VITELLONI MASCHI E FEMMINE
Nawi
Self made
BANSS
BERMEJO
CTM-LORCA
Couedic Mador
Emme
GUITERA
MECNICAS GARROTXA
Self made
TAESA
Bob Snarr
Number of devices
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
24
1
1
2
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
3
2
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
221
222
ANNEX 4 : EQUIPMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKING AREA

Name
Identification Number of cattle slaughtered per year by Dhabiha and/or Shechita
General line speed (without pre-cut stun) or standard operating procedures (without
pre-cut stun)
Line speed during observation day
Length of corridor
Number of animals put in the corridor
Duration of queuing
Time needed to empty corridor
Use of anti-back-up devices
Corridor
Physical aspects of corridor:
light/light contrasts
presence of sharp corners
presence of noise
presence of obstacles
Specific aspects of the floor of the corridor
slippery yes/no
slopes
anti-slip steps
Manufacturer/Model
Physical aspects of the box while taking into account the animals visual perspective
light conditions
obstacles /gaps
noise
Restraint
floor surface
device
Degrees of rotation
Frequency of cleaning of the box
Restraining system of the box
which body parts fixed in which order and in how many stages
animal properly restrained yes/no
position of animal with respect to the box at the end of rotation
Chin lift
produce picture or drawing
does it hamper the cut e.g. knife potentially in contact with the chin lift
Release of the animal from the box:
Release area
How
When
rotation of the box at that point in time
Difficulties and interventions of the operator to release the animal
Blood management in the area (cleanliness high medium, low)
Knife
Equipment Description
Size
Its use (reciprocal, one way, perpendicular)
Key indicators that the operator uses to identify the cut location
Position and number of operators
Operators
Ways of communication between operators
Can he see the head of the animal, directly or via mirrors?
Risks for the operators in the area
Number of slaughter men
Slaughter
Their roles (introduction animal, cut, restraining, monitoring consciousness, hoisting)
men
Give a rating of the reliability of the information you obtained
223
224
ANNEX 5 : DEFINITION OF OPERATING PROCEDURE AND BEHAVIORAL ITEMS
Operating
procedure
Definition
head entrance
nostrils not visible
head out of box
ears (and horns) visible outside of the box (until start

head contention)
start
contention press on button by operator
belly/back
start contention head
press on button by operator
start rotation
direct observation of box or press on button by

operator
end rotation

operator
time start cut
first contact between blade and neck: cutting tissue
number of cuts
number of movements (total of backwards and

forwards) of the blade while in contact with the neck
tissue
bleeding quality
impeded flow, yes/no; both sides: yes/no; visible

blood clot: yes/no. If needed, check before or after
hoisting
secondary
interventions
(removal blood clot)
operator takes carotid and removes blood clot. Any

other type of secondary intervention needs to be
mentioned and described
time end of bleeding
no longer pulsing if normal blood flow
start
re-positioning direct observation of box or press on button by
rotating box
operator
end-re-positioning
rotating box

operator
opening side of box

operator
animal released from animal out of the box

box
stimulation
wound
of
the box side is between caudal and rostral part of the neck
cut while in contact with sectioned tissue or any other
stimulation
225

Item
Definition
Operators behaviour
voice speak
operator speaks loud to make animal move
voice shout
operator shouts to make animal move
Noise
clapping hands, banging on fittings
Hand
slap with hand on animal
stick
stick on animal
Prod
prod in contact with animal
tail twist
twisting tail on back
door on back
closing door of the box on the back of the

animal (or on the animal following the first)
Other
any other activity not mentioned above

Animal behaviour
walk forwards
at least 3 legs put forward
walk backwards
at least 3 legs put backward
Slips
at least 1 leg sliding over floor
Falls
any part of the body apart from the legs

touching the floor (unintentionally)
is walked on
at least one other animal having at least 2

feet on the observed animal on the floor
vocalises
vocal sound intentionally expressed by the

animal
is compressed
animal physically compressed by two other

animals or by one animal and a solid wall
compresses
animal physically compressing another animal
is mounted
animal mounted by another animal
mounts
animal mounting another animal
struggles (before or after movements involving the whole body, legs and
cut)
possible head with the intention to escape
from the situation
eye pursuit or eye tracking looking intentionally at the surroundings
(after cut)
226
eyes convulsing
eye white visible, eyes turning inwards
spontaneous movements of eyelids closing without previous pressure on

the eye lids
the cornea
head rising (after cut)
intentional neck moving upwards
loss of posture
animal sitting or lying down. Apparent loss of

posture: animals seems not to carry its weight
but is carried by the restraining system.
body rising
movement of the whole body aiming

(intentionally) to orient the sternum in the
horizontal plane
guttural sound (after cut)
unintentional audible sound arising from the

throat
attempt to inspire
successful
or
unsuccessful
inspiration
movement discontinued with guttural sound
Tongxit
Tensed tongue out of the mouth (ended when

withdrawal of tongue or relaxed tongue
other
any behavior not mentioned above
loss of corneal reflex
absence of eye closure after a LIGHT touch on

the canthus of the eye (brush fixed on a stick)
227
228
ANNEX 6 : BEHAVORIAL AND OPERATING PROCEDURE OBSERVATION

IN CORRIDOR AND IN RESTRAINING SYSTEM
OPERATOR
voice, hand, stick, prod, tail twist, door on back, other, objective of the operator
(all behaviors are event)
BEHAVIOUR
ANIMAL
BEHAVIOUR
DEVICE
OPERATINGS
walks forwards, walks backwards, is compressed, compresses, mounts/is

mounted, slips, falls, is walked on, struggle, vocalization (all behaviors are event)
Head entrance, Head out of box, door closing (event)
Start/End : belly plate, back/lateral pusher, neck/head restraint, rotation
PROCEDURE
BLEEDING AND POST-CUT PRACTICES : OPERATOR
Number of cuts: number of movements (total of backwards and forwards) of
the blade while in contact with the neck tissue
CUT
Multiple small movements (saw): yes/no

Operator blood covered : yes/no
Vocalisation during cut: yes/no
Both carotids cut: yes/no
Impeded flow: yes/no
Both sides: yes/no
BLEEDING QUALITY
Visible blood clot: yes/no.

Secondary intervention: yes/no
Regurgitation of fluid : yes/no
Time end of bleeding: no longer pulsing if normal blood flow
Stunning : Yes/no
POST-CUT STUN
Quality of stunning: well/bad due to clear difficulties/bad due to other reasons

Why stunning is not performed
229

Start re-positioning rotating box
End re-positioning rotating box
Releasing head restraint
RELEASING
Releasing neck restraint

Release from body restraint
Animal released from box
Start hoisting
BLEEDING AND POST-CUT PRACTICES: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
Loss of posture or apparent loss of posture: animal sitting or lying down (event)
POSTURE
Struggle (event)
head/body movement (intentionally-event)
Spontaneous movements of the eye lids, blinking (event)
EYES
Eyes convulsing (start/end)

Loss of corneal reflex (light touch with small paintbrush). Scan every 15 seconds
Guttural sound (event)
HEAD
Rhythmic breathing (start/end)

Attempt to inspire (event)
Tongue exit (start/end)
Comment: Regarding the signs of consciousness, there is a general behavioral pattern that
could be observed following the cut in many animals. A first short period of head movements
and eyes blinking occurred followed by eye rotation. When in upright position, loss of posture
took place during this first phase. Then animals generally seem in tetanic phase with fixed
eyes. Later inspiration/expiration (not a rhythmic breathing) attempt with tongue exit and
characteristic vocalization start while bleeding become more and more contractile. It is not
really known, so far, when the loss of consciousness takes place during these different
phases. Based on previous study, we know that, where it is possible to observe, loss of
posture which is generally considered to be the first sign of loss of consciousness, takes place
230
before eye rotation (Michard and Mirabito, unpublished). Furthermore, we also know that
corneal reflex or reflex to threatening, for instance, are not testable during some of the
phases.
Taking into account all these parameters and also the different situations of
observation, it was agreed between partners then to focus on continuous behavioral
observations after bleeding (except corneal reflex) with an analysis/interpretation of the data
post hoc. Loss of posture or orientated raising attempt will however be observed only when
the position of the animal and/or the restraining practice allow.
BLEEDING AND POST-CUT PRACTICES: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
POSITION OF THE
CUT
PRESENCE OF
BLOOD IN THE
TRACHEA/LUNGS
In a subsample of 20 animals, the position of the cut will be checked first by

counting the tracheal rings from the larynx to the cut (figure 1) and later, after
dressing, considering the cervical vertebra in which the cut was performed
(figure 2). Methods used may be updated later depending on feasibility and
accuracy.
In a subsample of 20 animals, the presence of blood in the trachea will be
assessed by cutting, after dressing the trachea longitudinally and scoring the
presence of blood as present or absent according to the figures below.
Direct observation of the position of the cut will be made. It is important to note that
this will be only a rough estimation and depends also on the practice of the slaughter men.
In order to have a more reliable estimation, observations could be carried out directly on the
animal after the cut by counting the number of tracheal rings from larynges or by
observation of the localization of the end point of the cut on carcasses (vertebrae). These
two methods will be used as exploratory tools on sub sample of animals when possible
(depending on the organization of the slaughterhouse and the acceptability by slaughter
men). For the same reason, the presence of blood in trachea/lungs will be estimated in a
sub-sample.
231

Tracheal rings (Source : Marzin and Ducreux, 2013).
Cervical vertrebrae (Source : Marzin and Ducreux, 2013)
Absence and presence of blood in the trachea (Source : Marzin and Ducreux, 2013)
232
ANNEX 7 : ANIMALS CHARACTERISTICS
Time since the entry of the animal in the walls of the slaughterhouse
(Dhabiha or shechita slaughter) : Rest time yes/no
Post-cut stun
SPECIFIC
PARAMETERS
FOR EACH
ANIMAL
Degrees of rotation
Type : Dairy, Meat or mixed
Sex
Age (Calves : up to 8 months- Young : from 8 24 months - Adult :
more than24 months)
Carcass weight (kg)
233
234

ANNEX 8: QUESTIONNAIRES FOR DATA COLLECTION (SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS)
Survey | WP3 |Questions for Directors of slaughter plant
The questionnaires should focus on slaughtering without stunning or post-cut stunning (only).
1. Slaughter men and their knowledge
1.1. How many slaughtermen with a license to slaughter cattle without stunning, perform that work
in your plant?? (total number, so employees on your payroll and those who are not). Please
specify if they are on your pay roll or outsourced
Dhabiha: ____________________
payroll
Kosher: ___________________ payroll
outsourced
outsourced
1.2 Does this task provide work for 100% of their time:
Yes, fully at my plant
Yes, fully but only pareal at my plant
No, namely....% of their time
1.3 What is the level of experience of the slaughtermen? And do they have any certificates?
Years of experience:
Certificated:
....................... years
yes
no
1.4 How do you ensure that the slaughtermen are informed about animal welfare?
2. Work safety of Slaughtermen
2.1.
2.2.
Please indicate the number of incidents with slaughtermen per year and per 1000 cattle
slaughtered in your plant and related to the restraining area in 2012?
Number of incidents in 2012 with unstunned slaughter of cattle in restraining area
.....
Number of incidents with unstunned slaughter
In the restraining area per 1000 cattle slaughtered:
.....
Severity of injuries
Please indicate the type of impact and the frequency of the incidents on slaughtermen in the
restraining areas.
235

Type of injury
Brushes
Illness
Muscle pull or strain
Cuts
Got hit by ...
Break a leg / arm /

...
Breathing problems
Others, ...
Type of impact
(delete as appropriate)
Still able to work
Not able to work for a moment
day / some days
Not able to work anymore
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Frequency /
year
/a
/a
/a
/a
/a
/a
/a
/a
2.3 If its up to you, with regard to improving workers safety.... what would you alter first at the
restrainer used in your plant?
3. Economic aspects of the restraining device

3.1.
Please indicate the year of investment? _____________________________________Year: ....
3.2.
What is the amount of total investment of the restraining device, including modifications of the
plant? ___________________________ Euro
And what are the annually maintenance costs? .......................... euro/year
236

3.3.
Why has this restraining system been chosen?

Please number in sequence the motives given below if applicable in your opinion (1= most
important argument; 2= second most important argument etc...).
Total investment (price of the restraining system)
Possibilities for negotiations concerning price
Work safety of slaughtermen
Animal welfare
Familiarity with supplier
Existing business relation
Maintenance costs
Breakdowns
Religious requirements
Others......................................................................................
3.4.
3.5.
Would the same decision have been taken today?

Yes/No
If no, what choice would be made? And please explain why.
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
If you want to replace your existing restraining device by another system, how would this
influence your restraining area in terms of investments? Does this affect more than the
investments of the restraining device only or should you alter more in the slaughter line?
Investments are needed for:
only the restraining device
more than the restraining device, additional investments are . Euro.
3.6.
What is the expected life time of the restrainer in the case of normal maintenance:
Years:....
3.7.
Can you estimate the labour costs in the restraining area per slaughtered adult cattle. You only
have to include the direct personnel costs, no worries about other costs like maintenance,
depreciation, electricity and so on.
.. euro/adult cattle (if more people in restraining area, please add costs of all attended people
and note per 1 bovine)
3.8.
How many people are active in the neighborhood of the restrainer and what are their roles?
___a.___________________________ people with role ...

___b.___________________________ people with role ...
___c.___________________________ people with role ...
237

___d.___________________________ people with role ...
3.9.
What is the time needed to slaughter an adult cattle: number of animals slaughtered per hour
.......
3.10.
How long do the animals stay in the restrain device?

time.) Average time in seconds.........
3.11.
What are the total costs of slaughtering an adult cattle under different conditions? (e.g. labour,
maintenance, electricity, depreciation)
Conditions
Euro per adult cattle
(Please state the average
Conventional
Dhabiha
3.12.
Kosher
In the next 5 years, do you expect the number of animals slaughtered without any form of
stunning in your plant to :
Please estimate the percentage in the case of increase or decrease
Increase (
Decrease (
%)
%)
Remain stable
238

Survey | WP3 | Questions for Animal welfare officer at slaughter plant
Animal welfare
1.
Please indicate the number of incidents with animals (animal welfare is harmed) per year and
per 1000 cattle slaughtered in your plant in the restraining area in 2012? This only relates to
animals slaughtered unstunned before killing.
Incidents in 2012
.........
Incidents per 1000 cattle slaughtered unstunned .........
2. Where did offences of animal welfare take place (% of total)?

a.
b.
c.
d.
During lairage
During restraining
Not killed properly
Bleeding
Total
%
%
%
%
100
3. In your opinion, does the type of restrainer (rotatory or upright) influence the incidents related
to animal welfare?
Yes /no
Please explain:
4. In your opinion, can improvement of animal welfare be realised by adapting the restrainer? Yes
/no
Please explain:
5. In your opinion, which type of restrainer is best for animal welfare?
o Upright
o Rotating
o The position of the animal makes no difference
6. If its up to you, with regard to improving animal welfare.... what would you alter first at the
Survey | WP3 |Questions for Work Safety Officer at slaughter plant
Work safety of slaughter men
1.
Please indicate the number of incidents with slaughtermen per year and per 1000 cattle
slaughtered in your plant in the restraining area in 2012?
2.
Severity of injuries
239

Please indicate the type of impact and the frequency of the incidents on slaughtermen in the
restraining areas.
Type of injury
Brushes
Illness
Cuts
Got hit by ...
Break a leg / arm /

...
Breathing problems
Others, ...
Type of impact
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Frequency /
year
/a
/a
/a
/a
/a
/a
/a
/a
3. If its up to you, with regard to improving workers safety.... what would you alter first at the
Survey | WP3 |Question for slaughtermen

General
240

1. How many people are active in the neighborhood of the restrainer and what are their roles?
___a.___________________________ people with role ...

___b.___________________________ people with role ...
___c.___________________________ people with role ...
___d.___________________________ people with role ...
2. Number of animals slaughtered per hour .......

3. On average, how long do the animals stay in the restrain device?
Average time in seconds.........
4. What are the total costs of slaughtering an adult cattle under different conditions?
Conditions
Euro per adult cattle
Conventional
Halal
Kosher
I do not know
Type of work
5. Period active as a slaughtermen: Working as a slaughter man for
years......
6. Type of work;
rotating tasks/ single task
7. Full time job of part time job
hours per week:....
8. What training do you have for the job of slaughter man?

9. How are you informed about the animal welfare aspects related to the slaughtering and stunning
process? By whom or what?
Experience and training

10. Experienced as Islamic/Jewish slaughter man for
.... years
241

11. Slaughter plant training, if yes, what, how long?
no/yes, if yes for
.... years
12. religious training, if yes, what, how long, where ?
no/yes, if yes for
.... years
Status
13. How is your employment arranged? Are you on the payroll of the slaughter house, of a
certification agency or do you work for yourself (independent/freelance)?
Employee at slaughterhouse
Employee at certification agency
Independent
14. Do you have a religious license for ritual slaughter?
yes/ no
14b. If yes, did you ask for it or did your employer ask it for you?
15. Is there any link with a certification agency?
I did/ Employer did

yes/ no
15b. If yes, please specify the certification agency ....................................................................

Religious activities
14. Where did you got your religious education?
family
self-educated,
association,
Muslim / Jewish school
Mosque/ Synagogue frequentation : which one, frequency
......times per week
15. Please specify your religious activities:

16. Please specify two or three reference books about Islam/ Judaism if any: .....................................
Work safety
17. How do you judge your working conditions?
a. physical (stressful = 5.....no stress =1) :
.....
b. mentally (stressful=5.... no stress =1) :
.....
18. How often did you get injured during job time?
(less than once a year (=1); annually 1-5 times (=2); annually > 5 times (3).
......
19. Type of injuries and frequency
Type of injury
Brushes
Type of impact
Still able to work
Not able to work for a moment / a
Frequency /
year
242
Illness
Cuts
Got hit by ...
Break a leg / arm /

...
Breathing problems
Others, ...
day / some days

Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
/a
/a
/a
/a
/a
/a
/a
20. If its up to you, with regard to improving workers safety.... what would you alter first at the
Restraining system
21.
Which restraining system do you prefer?

a. Rotatory restraining device
b. up right restraining device
c. another system..........................................
d. no experience because I only worked with one system.
22.
Why do you prefer a rotatory restraining device or an upright restraining device?

-
Work safety
Costs
Time needed to sacrifice an animal
243

23.
Others .................................................................
Can the current restraining system be improved (by making adaptations) regarding
a. work safety
yes/ no
b. animal welfare
yes/ no
23b. if yes please describe the kind of adaptation?

........................................................................................
Socio economic background
- Age
- Nationality
- County of birth
- Age arrived in country
- language of the interview
- Highest level of (completed) education
- Previous jobs
.... year
...................................
...................................
.....year
...................................
basic/ middle/high
...................................
...................................
....................................
- Net income / month for slaughter activity (per slaughterhouse if more than one)
.................... net per month
244

Survey | WP3 |Questions for Insurance companies
1. What is the number of incidents with slaughtermen? In number per full time equivalent per
year?
2. What is the type of injury, the type of impact and frequency of the injures per year?
Type of injury
Type of impact
Frequency /
year
Brushes
Still able to work
day / some days
Illness
Still able to work
day / some days
Still able to work
day / some days
Cuts
Still able to work
day / some days
Got hit by ...
Still able to work
day / some days
Break a leg / arm /
Still able to work
...
day / some days
Breathing problems
Still able to work
day / some days
Others, ...
Still able to work
day / some days
3. If available, can you mention the incidents for slaughtermen operating in the area where the
animals are killed? In number per full time equivalent per year?
4. If available, can you differentiate this number between the incidents for slaughtermen killing
the animals unstunned versus stunned? In number per full time equivalent per year?
5. If available, can you mention the incidents for slaughtermen killing the animals unstunned in
an upright pen versus a rotatory restraining pen? In number per full time equivalent per
year?
245

Survey | WP3 | Questions for manufacturers of restrainers
ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE RESTRAINING DEVICE
GENERAL
1. Can you estimate the percentage of the different types of restrainers in EU-27 for
slaughterhouses performing unstunned slaughtering?
a. No
b. Yes :
i. ..% rotatory restraining device
ii. ..% up right restraining device
iii. ..% other
2. What is your market share on the EU market?
..%
3. Can you list your main competitors? Including country of origin
1. ......................... from .
2. ......................... from .
3. ........................... from .
4. ......................... from .
5. .......................... from .
Costs for restraining systems for ADULT CATTLE
4. If your customers want to replace the existing restraining device by another system, how
would this influence the restraining area in terms of investments? Does this affect more than
the investments of the restraining device only or should they alter more in the slaughter line?
Investments are needed for:
only the restraining device
more than the restraining device, additional investments are . Euro.
5. Rough estimate of the investment of restraining device? (=the purchase of the restraining
device and its installation by the manufacturer).
a. Rotatory restraining device: euro
b. Up right restraining device:
euro
6. Can you give a rough estimate about the investments in restraining system compared to the
investment of a total slaughter line?
.....% of total costs is intended for the restraining system
7. Rough estimate of the maintenance (as a percentage of the investment) of the restraining
system?
a. Rotatory restraining device: %
%
246
8. What is the expected life time of restraining system?

a. Rotatory restraining device: years
years
9. Do you have any insight in important and deciding buying motives for your customers (the
slaughterhouses) when choosing a certain restraining system?
If so, please number in sequence the motives given below if applicable in your opinion (1=
most important argument; 2= second most important argument etc...).
Total investment (price of the restraining system)
Possibilities for negotiations concerning price
Work safety of slaughtermen
Animal welfare
Familiarity with supplier
Existing business relation
Maintenance costs
Breakdowns
Religious requirements
Others......................................................................................
10. Could you please give us the different models you have produced, their characteristic (see
table below) and the year of release? (please underline change)
Model
Year of Type
release (upright
or
rotating)
Type
of
body
restraining
device
Type
of
neck
restraining
device
If
rotating,
type of
cycle an
control
Main
changes
from
previous
models
Main specific
requirements
from
customer
11. What are the main requirements for adaptation from your customers?
12. Could you please send us the user guide (also in English if available)?
247
Survey | WP3 | Questions for other stakeholders: Wholesale

1. Where do you buy (origin of the meat) meat of cattle religious slaughtered?
a. In home Market
b. Import from (names of countries)
i. .........
ii. .........
iii. .........
2. Where do you sell (destination of the meat) meat of cattle religious slaughtered?
a. In home Market
b. Export to (names of countries)
i. .........
ii. .........
iii. .........
3. What share of total cattle meat traded is:
a. Religious slaughtered without any stunning
...%
b. Religious slaughtered with stunning before killing
c. Religious slaughtered with stunning directly after killing
.....%
.....%
4. Do you manage to sell the whole carcass as Halal/ Kosher on the home market? Yes/NO
If Not: In which market(s) are the remaining parts sold?
a. Home market as regular meat;
b. Export market as regular meat:
c. Export market as religious slaughtered meat:
Total
.....%
.....%
.....%
100%
248

Islamic and Jewish Institutions contacted for expressing their opinion on acceptability of the different restraint
system (Source: BoRest, Acceptability by religious communities)
Member
States
Islamic institutions
United
Kingdom
The Muslim Council of

Britain
Spain
Comisin Islmica de
Espaa
Jewish institutions
Shechita UK
National Council of Shechita Boards
Principal rabbi of Barcelona and

Catalonia and
Junta Islmica
Instituto halal
The
Netherlands
The Contactorgaan Moslims

en Overheid
Contact Groep Islam
Italy
UCOII Unione delle

Comunit Islamiche d'Italia
Grand Rabbin de Roma
CCII, Centro Culturale

Islamico d'Italia (Islamic
Cultural Center in Rome)
France
Le Conseil franais de culte

musulman
Grand Rabin de Metz,
Grande Mosque de Paris

Grande Mosque de Lyon
Grande Mosque dEvry
Belgium
LExecutif des Musulmans

de Belgique
Belgium ; Grand Rabbin de Bruxelles

Synagogue de Bruxelles
249
250

ANNEX 9 : METHODOLOGY FOR THE MEETING WITH RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATIVES
The meeting was introduced by a formal presentation from the consortium recalling the aim
of the study. It was recalled that it was dealing with restraining device used in case of
slaughter without stunning and that the project was not addressing the issue of stunning.
Two videos of upright and rotating devices were shown, allowing identifying precisely the
sequence to comment on: from the restraint of the animal until -and including- the cut. In
order to trigger precise, detailed and comparable comments, we have shown the same
videos in all countries. These videos were taken from one Dhabiha example. Except of the
restraining system, the two videos differ (non-intentionally but in relation with the video
material available) also by the number of cuts performed by the operator (higher number in
the video of upright system).
The religious authorities were invited to give their detailed opinions on each of the methods,
their advantages and disadvantages from a religious point of view.
Then, the religious authorities were invited to send a written document of their opinions
within two weeks after the meeting, especially if they wished to reflects on their opinions
within their communities, and give an official statement.
The institutions listed in the table have been contacted.
Separated meeting with Jewish and Muslim authorities took place from November 2013 to
March 2014 and were organised in Belgium, France, the UK and Spain.
No meeting could be organised in the Netherlands for both Muslim and Jewish communities,
nor in Italy for Jews, and in France for the Muslims, because the religious authorities
contacted declined the invitation. In Italy for Muslims, the debate focused rather on
bleeding and stunning. Then the data were not fully usable in this report.
251
252

ANNEX 10 : PROPOSED BASIS FOR IMPROVED STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND
WORK SAFETY
The present proposal is based on output from assessment of welfare and experts opinions. Values
into brackets referred to best observed practices in the sample and experts opinions.
Entry in the restraining system
Animal Welfare:
1. The layout of the end of the corridor and the device should be designed to minimize
difficulties for the animals to enter the restraining device
2. Corridor should have a non-slippery floor surface
3. The operators should be trained for the handling of the animals
Examples of monitoring indicators: use of electric prod, behavioural indicators of stress,
vocalizations
Work Safety:
1. Slaughtermen and restraint operators must have safety access and vision of the animal
Restraining procedure (all device)

Animal Welfare:
1. Restraint device must have a non-slippery floor surface
2. Operators should be trained with their specific restraint device and able to monitor the
quality of restraint and the behaviour of the animals
3. The different operations should be carried without any delay e.g. in less than [on average 30
seconds (maximum up to 60 seconds)]
4. Hyperextension of the neck must not be performed with the chin lift.
All other restraining equipment (back pusher, side plates, neck yoke) must not use excessive
pressure that causes injury, pain or distress (vocalizations, struggling, etc)
5. Animals must be immediately e.g. less than [on average 5 seconds (maximum up to 10
seconds)] after being fully restrained or restrained and rotated (this includes washing of the
neck)
6. If , for whatever reason there is a delay when the animal is restrained, it should be
immediately stunned.
Examples of monitoring indicators: Duration of restraint, Delay between end of head restraint and
cut, vocalizations
Work safety:
1. Layout of the device area should be such that the operators are able to control the device
and monitor the animals without having the risk of being in contact with mobile part of the
device
2. Layout of the area should allow the restraint operator to see the head of the animal in a safe
way. Where needed, mirror or other vision system should be installed
3. Device should allow a safe access to the animals (body and head) in particular in case of
welfare emergency
253

Restraining procedure (Upright system):
Animal Welfare:
4. Animals must not be lifted off the ground with the belly plate (i.e. legs no longer significantly
supporting weight of the animal)
Restraint must have a recessed belly plate (can cause bulking, obstructions and falls)
Restraining procedure (Rotating system)
Animal Welfare:
1. Animals must be securely restrained without causing injury, pain, distress prior and during
rotation e.g. use the animals must be well positioned before immobilisation and operators
should monitor the behaviour of the animals during the restraining process.
2. Rotation should start immediately after the restraint of the animals, should be as smooth as
possible and should not last more than [on average 15 seconds (maximum up to 30
seconds)];
Example of monitoring indicators: Duration of rotation
Bleeding
Animal Welfare:
5. Many factors such as category of animals, quality of head restraint, position of the cut,
sharpness of the knife are influencing quality of the cut. The skill and capability of the
operator should be such as they know these potential risks and are able to manage them as
far as possible.
6. The number of cuts depends on religious prescription. As far as possible, it should be
minimized
7. Animals must be checked for signs of sensibility before removal from the restraint, at least,
not before [45 seconds] after the cut. If signs of consciousness are still present, the animal is
to be immediately stunned.
8. The restraint practices must be designed to allow the use of mechanical stun device if
required (e. g. obvious prolonged consciousness).
9. All animals must be monitored after removal from the restraint during [45 seconds] for signs
of regain consciousness before hoisting.
10. When immediate post-cut stun is performed, the animals may be removed from the restraint
device after having been checked for the absence of sign of consciousness.
Example of monitoring indicators: Number of cut, frequency of miss-cuts (i. e. both carotids are
not severed), frequency of impeded flow, frequency of signs of consciousness at the end of the
periods
254

Work Safety:
2. Layout of the bleeding area should be such as to minimize the risk of the operator to be hurt
by the head of the animals or any other mobile equipment
3. Operators must be positioned comfortably using safe equipment (e. g. fixed equipment)
4. Slaughtermen must have good access and vision of the animals head, neck and cut.
5. Animals should be restrained until insensible to minimise the likelihood of worker injuries
during shackling and hoisting.
6. During removal from the restraint sufficient space should be allowed in case of swinging of
the animals, convulsive hind leg kicking and the potential of the animals falling off the
shackle.
7. Protected area for operators (e.g. for when an animal stands up after being released from
the restrainer)
8. Attachment of hind leg after removal from the restraint device as soon as possible
9. When the bovine animals show obvious signs of consciousness that require corrective action,
the stunning of the animal should be performed unless it does endanger the operator.
10. Pre or immediate post-cut stun is performed, when accepted by religious authorities, to
minimize the risk for workers.
255
256

ANNEX 11: VALUATION OF THE INDICATORS PER JUDGEMENT AREA TO COMPARE THE
UPRIGHT AND ROTATING RESTRAINING SYSTEM
INDICATOR
Economic costs
A. Total investment
B. Restrainer as% of total

investment
slaughter
line
C. Maintenance costs
D. Total
costs(=
investment
+
maintenance + interest)
E. Lifetime restrainer
F. Line speed (see part 3)
(animals per hour)
Religious aspects
A. Requirements
from
Jewish religion
B. Requirements
from
Muslim religion
C. Religious education of
slaughter man
Work safety
A. Number of accidents
B. Frequency of accidents
C. Type of injuries
D. Impact of injuries
E. Experience of slaughter
man
F.
Education of slaughter
man
UPRIGHT POSITION
30-60,000 pound= 3672,000 euro (mean :

50.000 euro)
About 7%
ROTATING
100,000 euro
About 10%
1000-2000 pound =
1200-2400 euro per
year
4,300 euro per year
3000- 15,300 euro per

year
12,600 euro per year
30-50 years
30
(variation 10-80
animals per hour)
14-25 years
28
(variation
10-80
animals per hour)
Inverted
Rotating preference
Jewish :no info
Halal: Muslim school
(1)/ Mosque (2)
Jewish : Jewish School

and Synagogue
Halal: all Mosque and
some Muslim school
2 incidents recorded in
2012
No information
Brushes + hit by
3 incidents recorded in
2012
No information
Cuts+ 2 break a leg/
arm
None + few days off
All are working full time
None/ still able to work

Except one all are
working full time (one
person
works
part
time; 0.5 week).
Working experience 523 years
Basic
to
middle
education ;
Further trained on the
spot
Working experience 220 years

Basis to middle
Mainly further trained
on
the
spot
and
sometimes
external
courses
257
258

Trade
A. Origin of meat
B. Destination meat
n.a.
No information
C. Share cattle slaughtered

without stunning
495.000 of 15.6 million

animals
slaughtered
(=3%)
D. % sold as halal/ kosher
Animal Welfare
AW indicators
Number of accidents
animals
with
1 incident reported by
2 respondents
n.a.
Mainly for home market
as religious meat (80%)
European
market
as
religious meat (20%)
European
market
as
regular meat (1%)
1.584.000 of the 15.6
million
slaughtered
cattle (=10%)
=99% sold as halal
meat
No info on Kosher meat
Not willing to respond
259
260
9. REFERENCES
Anil MH 2012 Religious slaughter: A current controversial animal welfare issue. Animal Frontiers 2:
64-67.
Anon 1995 The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations Statutory Instrument no. 731:
United Kingdom
Bager F, Braggins TJ, Devine CE, Graafhuis AE, Mellor DJ, Tavener A, and Upsdell MP 1992 Onset of
Insensibility at Slaughter in Calves - Effects of Electroplectic Seizure and Exsanguination on
Spontaneous Electrocortical Activity and Indexes of Cerebral Metabolism. Research in Veterinary
Science 52: 162-173.
Barnett JL, Cronin GM, and Scott PC 2007 Behavioural responses of poultry during kosher slaughter
and their implications for the birds' welfare. Veterinary Record 160: 45-49.
Berg C, and Jakobsson T 2007 Post-cut stunning at religious slaughter. Svensk Veterinrtidning 59: 2128.
Blackmore DK 1984 Differences in Behavior between Sheep and Cattle During Slaughter. Research in
Veterinary Science 37: 223-226.
Blackmore DK, and Newhook JC 1981 Insensibility During Slaughter of Pigs in Comparison to Other
Domestic Stock. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 29: 219-222.
Blackmore DK, Newhook JC, and Grandin T 1983 Time of Onset of Insensibility in 4-Week-Old to 6Week-Old Calves During Slaughter. Meat Science 9: 145-149.
Blackmore DK, Newhook JC, and Petersen GV 1979 Electrical Stunning and Humane Slaughter. New
Zealand Veterinary Journal 27: 224-224.
Blokhuis HJ, Roth B, Holst S, Kestin S, Raj M, Terlouw C, Velarde A, and von Wenzlawowicz M 2004
Welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods. Scientific Report of the Scientific Panel for
Animal Health and Welfare on request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of animal
stunning and killing methods, (Question No. EFSA-Q-2003-093, p.24). European Food Safety Authority
(AHAW 04-027)
Bourguet C, Deiss V, Tannugi CC, and Terlouw EMC 2011 Behavioural and physiological reactions of
cattle in a commercial slaughterhouse: Relationships with organisational aspects of the
slaughterhouse and animal characteristics. Meat Science 88: 158-168.
Cenci-Goga BT, Mattiacci C, De Angelis G, Marini P, Cuccurese A, Rossi R, and Catanese B 2010
Religious slaughter in Italy. Vet Res Commun 34 Suppl 1: S139-143.
Daly CC, Kallweit E, and Ellendorf F 1988 Cortical Function in Cattle During Slaughter - Conventional
Captive Bolt Stunning Followed by Exsanguination Compared with Shechita Slaughter. Veterinary
Record 122: 325-329.
Description of PEST analysis : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEST_analysis
261
262

Dun CS 1990 Stress reactions of cattle undergoing ritual slaughter using two methods of restraint.
Veterinary Record 126: 522-525.
Estrella M, Forester BS, and Whinnery JE 1992 Statistical Analysis of the Human Strangulation
Experiments: Comparison to +Gz-Induced Loss of Consciousness, 1-21. Naval Air Warfare Centre Aircraft Division: Warminster
EU 2009 Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at
the time of killing: Offical Journal of the European Union
FAWC 1995 Report on the welfare of livestock when slaughtered by religious methods. Farm Animal
Welfare Council: London
FCEC, 2007, Study on the stunning/killing practices in slaughterhouses and their economic, social
and environmental consequences Assignment 3 of the Framework Contract for evaluation and
evaluation related services - Lot 3: Food Chain (awarded through tender no 2004/S 243-208899) p 1.
Gibson TJ 2009 Electroencephalographic responses of calves to the noxious sensory input of
slaughter by vental neck incision and its modulation with non-penetrative captive bolt stunning
Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, 0-280. PhD Thesis, Massey University:
Palmerston North, New Zealand
Gibson TJ, Johnson CB, Murrell JC, Chambers JP, Stafford KJ, and Mellor DJ 2009a Components of
electroencephalographic responses to slaughter in halothane-anaesthetised calves: Effects of cutting
neck tissues compared with major blood vessels. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 57: 84-89.
Gibson TJ, Johnson CB, Murrell JC, Hulls CM, Mitchinson SL, Stafford KJ, Johnstone AC, and Mellor DJ
2009b Electroencephalographic responses of halothane-anaesthetised calves to slaughter by ventralneck incision without prior stunning. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 57: 77-83.
Grandin T 1980 Problems with Kosher Slaughter. International Journal for the Study of Animal
Problems 1: 375-390.
Grandin T 1990 Humanitarian Aspects of Shehitah in the United States. Judaism 39: 436-446.
Grandin T 1992 Observations of cattle restraint devices for stunning and slaughtering. Animal
Welfare 1: 85-90.
Grandin T 1994 Farm Animal-Welfare During Handling, Transport, and Slaughter. Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association 204: 372-377.
Grandin T 1998 The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during
cattle slaughter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 121-128.
Grandin T 2013 Making Slaughterhouses More Humane for Cattle, Pigs, and Sheep. Annual Review of
Animal Biosciences 1: 491-512.
Grandin T, and Regenstein JM 1994 Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat
scientists. Meat Focus International: 115-123.
263
264

Gregory NG 2005 Recent concerns about stunning and slaughter. Meat Science 70: 481-491.
Gregory NG, Fielding HR, Von Wenzlawowicz M, and Von Holleben K 2010 Time to collapse following
slaughter without stunning in cattle. Meat Science 85: 66-69.
Gregory NG, von Wenzlawowicz M, Alam RM, Anil HM, Sildere TY, and Silva-Fletcher A 2008 False
aneurysms in carotid arteries of cattle and water buffalo during shechita and halal slaughter. Meat
Science 79: 285-288.
Gregory NG, von Wenzlawowicz M, and von Holleben K 2009 Blood in the respiratory tract during
slaughter with and without stunning in cattle. Meat Science 82: 13-16.
Gregory NG, and Wotton SB 1984a Sheep Slaughtering Procedures .2. Time to Loss of Brain
Responsiveness after Exsanguination or Cardiac-Arrest. British Veterinary Journal 140: 354-360.
Gregory NG, and Wotton SB 1984b Time to Loss of Brain Responsiveness Following Exsanguination in
Calves. Research in Veterinary Science 37: 141-143.
Gro R 1979 Elektroencephalographische und Elektrokardiographische Verlaufsuntersuchungen nach
Bolzenschubetubung und nach Tten durch Entbluten in der Form des rituellen Schlachtens durch
die Tierrztliche Hochschule, 1-112. durch die Tierrztliche Hochschule: Hannover
Hall TC 1927 Demonstration of a New Jewish Method for Casting and Slaughtering Animals for Food.
Veterinary Record 7: 765-766.
Koorts R 1991 The Development of a Restraining System to Accommodate the Jewish Method of
Slaughter (Shechita) School of Biological and Health Technology. Technikon Witwatersrand:
Johannesburg
Lambooij E, van der Werf JTN, Reimert HGM, and Hindle VA 2012 Restraining and neck cutting or
stunning and neck cutting of veal calves. Meat Science 91: 22-28.
Levinger IM 1961 Untersuchungen zum Schchtproblem. University of Zrich: Zrich
Levinger IM 1979 Jewish method of slaughtering animals for food and its influence on blood supply
to the brain and on the normal functioning of the nervous system. Animal Regulation Studies 2: 111126.
Nangeroni LL, and Kennett PD 1964 Electroencephalographic Studies of the Effects of Shechita
Slaughter on Cortical Function in Ruminants Report of the New York State Veterinary College at
Cornell Universtiy for the Year 1963-64, 38-39. Cornell University: New York
Newhook JC, and Blackmore DK 1982 Electroencephalographic Studies of Stunning and Slaughter of
Sheep and Calves .2. The Onset of Permanent Insensibility in Calves During Slaughter. Meat Science 6:
295-300.
265
266

Pesenhofer G, Palme R, Pesenhofer RM, and Kofler J 2006 Comparison of two methods of fixation
during functional claw trimming - walk-in crush versus tilt table - in dairy cows using faecal cortisol
metabolite concentrations and daily milk yield as parameters. Wiener Tierarztliche Monatsschrift 93:
288-294.
Petty DB, Hattingh J, Ganhao MF, and Bezuidenhout L 1994 Factors which affect blood variables of
slaughtered cattle. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association 65: 41-45.
Regulation (EC) N1099/2009: on the protection of animals at the time of killing (2009): http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:303:0001:0030:EN:PDF
Ravaux X. 2011 Filire slaughterhouse : Synthse des tudes et donnes conomiques et sanitaires
disponibles fin 2010 partie 1: conomie, CGAAER n10227
Rosen SD 2004 Opinion piece; Physiological insights into Shechita. Veterinary Record 154: 759-765.
Rossen R, Kabat H, and Anderson JP 1943 Acute Arrest of Cerebral Circulation in Man. Archives of
Neurology and Psychiatry 50: 510-528.
Rushen J 1986 Aversion of Sheep for Handling Treatments - Paired-Choice Studies. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 16: 363-370.
Schulze W, Schultze-Petzold H, Hazem AS, and Gross R 1978 [Experiments for the objectification of
pain and consciousness during conventional (captive bolt stunning) and religiously mandated (ritual
cutting) slaughter procedures for sheep and calves]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr 85: 62-66.
Shragge JE, and Price MA 2004 Religious Slaughter, In: Jensen W, Devine C and Dikeman M (eds)
Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences p^pp 1162-1167. Elsevier Ltd: Oxford
Tagawa M, Okano S, Sako T, Orima H, and Steffey EP 1994 Effect of Change in Body Position on
Cardiopulmonary Function and Plasma-Cortisol in Cattle. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 56:
131-134.
Tyler J 2012 Dutch compromise on ritual slaughter. Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Velarde A, and Cenci-Goga B 2010 WP2.2 Religious slaughter: Evaluation of current practices, 1-4.
dialrel
Von Holleben K, Von Wenzlawowicz M, Gregory N, Anil H, Velarde A, Rodriguez P, Cenci-Goga BT,
Catanese B, and Lambooij E 2010 Report on good and adverse practices - animal welfare concerns in
relation to slaughter practices from the viewpoint of veterinary sciences: dialrel.
http://www.dialrel.eu/images/veterinary-concerns.pdf
Wagner AE, Muir WW, and Grospitch BJ 1990 Cardiopulmonary Effects of Position in Conscious
Cattle. American Journal of Veterinary Research 51: 7-10.
Warin A 2009 Etude des reactions comportementales des bovins et de lutilisation du box rotatif dans
le processus dabattage rituel. Universit Paris XIII
267
268

Warin-Ramette A, and Mirabito L 2010 Use of rotating box and turned-back position of cattle at the
time of slaughter 61st Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production 56.
European Federation of Animal Science: Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Wathes CM 2012 Cattle inversion for religious slaughter. Farm Animal Welfare Committe: London
Wotton SB, and Gregory NG 1986 Pig Slaughtering Procedures - Time to Loss of Brain Responsiveness
after Exsanguination or Cardiac-Arrest. Research in Veterinary Science 40: 148-151.
269

Aw Practice Slaughter Com Borest Report PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Aw Practice Slaughter Com Borest Report PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SANCO/2012/10357

149, Rue de Bercy

Authors and participants

OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 5

Restraint procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 85

GENERAL CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 191

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................ 201

10. ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................................... 209

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

WP4: Management and

Task 4.2: Joint meeting

Joint meetings WP2 &

WP2: Welfare implications

Task 2.1: Preparation of

Task 3.1: Preparation and

Task 2.2: Visits to the

Joint meetings WP2 &

Task 3.2: Data collection

SWOT analysis of different

BoRest final report June 2015

2. OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY

determine the sample of the slaughterhouses where socio-economic data were

Work package 2: Welfare impacts

both categories of bovine animals (calves and adults)

BoRest final report June 2015

*SH16 upright not included in the analysis

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

Work package 3: Socio economic implications

Meetings with religious representatives in the selected Member States

Monthly phone meeting of the consortium, organization of the steering committees

BoRest final report June 2015

Provision of non-slip flooring surfaces leading up to and in the pen.

BoRest final report June 2015

3. REVIEW OF THE CURRENT LITERATURE ON UPRIGHT AND

BoRest final report June 2015

Figure 2 : Minimum requirements for restraint device (Source: Grandin)

Figure 3 : Example of rotating restraint in inverted position (source: Banss)

BoRest final report June 2015

They can be broadly grouped into:

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

BoRest final report June 2015

Mean interval between

entry and slaughter

103.8 + 18.4 (SD)

11.1 + 3.8 (SD)

69.2 (range 19 241)

14.3 (range 2 120)